Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Stroth

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 08:55, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Stroth[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject is an attorney who does not meet notability per WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Article cites several sources, but almost all only mention subject in passing, or quote the subject in an article about someone or something else. Editor(s) with a conflict of interest have created suggested edits in the talk page that include an additional 98 references, but again I can't find any that are about the subject; all are about other people, court cases, etc., with the subject quoted or mentioned. Paisarepa (talk) 06:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am concerned about sockpuppetry at this article. Actioninjurylawyer and Andrewstroth have been blocked (the latter for having a User name the same as the subject of the article), and now Andrewvieira1993 shows up on the Talk page proposing addition of the same inappropriate content that the other editors have added to and have had reverted at the article. IP 108.240.193.22 attempted to remove the templated banners at the article while describing the Edit summary as "fixing errors". David notMD (talk) 14:08, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I discovered that this subject's article has already been through AfD once under the title Andrew M. Stroth and was delted. The editor that created Andrew M. Stroth was active in the AfD but created this article three months after the first was deleted. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew M. Stroth Paisarepa (talk) 15:53, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: During intervening eight years AS may have achieved notability. However, from my sampling, the references in the content recently added (and deleted) which I looked at were only in-passing mentions of Stroth, not at-length content ABOUT Stroth. Therefore, the same dearth of reliable sources may still apply. The aforementioned editors are persistent in adding types of content that have no reason to be in the article. David notMD (talk) 18:01, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions.--Nahal^(T) 09:04, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions.--Nahal^(T) 09:04, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chicago-related deletion discussions.--Nahal^(T) 09:04, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: From what I can gather by the sources in the article (and my own limited research) his proposed notability comes from being involved in marketing deals for athletes and representing the family of a Pierre Loury, a black 16-year-old who was shot by police in 2016. His firm represents other such cases apparently. None of those court cases/deals appears to be noteworthy enough to warrant an own article according to WP:BIO (See WP:CRIME in particular), not to mention a dedicated article for the representing lawyer or head of the representing law firm. The small amount of media coverage about Andrew Stroth that exists appears to be limited to local news in the area of Chicago. That said, he might become more notable in the future, at which point an article might be created. Going through the draft process first might be a good idea to avoid another deletion vote or edit warring. Hecato (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Then you'll be interested to learn that Beating of Dnigma Howard was created, as was Shooting of Jemel Roberson. Uncle G (talk) 11:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for pointing those out. These are at least more notable since they seem to have national and international media coverage. If Andrew Stroth played an active role in those court cases then he could be mentioned in the respective articles. I still don't think he deserves an own article though, unless he did something especially noteworthy in those court cases or in the surrounding controversy. If he did, then this could change my vote to a weak keep and improve --Hecato (talk) 17:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have never seen a Wikipedia article on a lawyer before that felt like large parts of it could be lifted and placed on an advertising billboard. The whole section of language on law suits over police "brutality" reeks of violation of NPOV. Not every person who is a claimed victim of excessive force has a notable situation, and not every lawyer involved in a notable case is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:59, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The references cited do not establish notabilty. Most of them are based on what the subject himself said. Maproom (talk) 23:05, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Coverage that exists is about his clients, not him. Don't see significant independent coverage to show he meets the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 23:24, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A collection of views of only one side of a set of court cases violates the Wikipedia:neutral point of view policy, and certainly is not the way to build a biography of a lawyer. Not everything in Wikipedia should be presented in the form of biographical articles. Uncle G (talk) 11:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning to delete. From the morass of links currently in the article and those now removed or posted on the talk page, there are exactly two which are about Stroth as opposed to his clients (I am excluding alumni news items and a student report on a talk he gave to a class at the Medill School of Journalism):

Kapos, Shia (6 September 2016). "After working with athletes, attorney pivots to the street". Chicago Sun Times.
Silverstein, Jack (22 September 2014). "Brand builder: Stroth creates marketing deals for athletes". Chicago Daily Law Bulletin

The second one is very local and basically a trade publication. The first one is pretty local too, but at least is a prominent newspaper. This doesn't strike me as sufficiently passing WP:GNG. All the rest are failed attempts to inherit notability (and publicize his law firm). The COI/socking shenanigans do not help either. In my view the creator of this article and a frequent editor up to January of this year is almost certainly a paid editor. The later editor and his various incarnations clearly has a COI and if an employee of the firm tasked with expanding the article is likewise an undeclared paid editor. See my more detailed comments at Talk:Andrew Stroth. Voceditenore (talk) 11:46, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG, typical of a lawyer's article; also promo, again typical of a lawyers article. The CDLR, cited above, quoted him as saying he is on the faculty at Northwestern. The Law school's faculty directory doesn't show him. here. So much for fact checking from that source. John from Idegon (talk) 22:44, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.