Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick McGuire (solicitor)

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.

Patrick McGuire (solicitor)

Patrick McGuire (solicitor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Non notable lawyer. None of the references are about the subject; they're mainly pointers to cases on which he worked and in which, for the most part, the subject is incidental or entirely missing. He has not held a position of any importance or notability. He does not inherit notability from the cases he's worked on, even were any of them more than the fairly routine stuff one would expect to see a personal injury lawyer engage in.

Previous versions of this paid COI fluff-article found only a couple of (routine PR) stories about the subject. Fails to satisfy

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Tagishsimon (talk) 00:22, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:05, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

As an editor with a COI, I have declared clearly my association with Patrick McGuire and worked in my Sandbox to create a neutral article about this notable Scottish solicitor. The current page does not represent his work well and is not up to date. The sources are indeed not comprehensive. I had drafted a more thorough and well-sourced page in my Sandbox using many reliable sources such as BBC News, Glasgow Times, The Herald Scotland and The Scotsman. I made an edit request asking for approval of the updated content (detailed on the Patrick McGuire Talk page), but my Sandbox page has been deleted in its entirity. This content described how Patrick has campaigned for and achieved legal change in Scotland, how the cases he is currently working on will set legal precedents whether he wins or loses and how he has worked on some of the most high-profile and highly-reported cases in Scotland's recent legal history. Can you advise as to how I can prove Patrick's notability when the suggestions for improvements I make are deleted very speedily without, or so it seems, full review by a number of editors.

Heartmusic678 recently added some requested updates to the Notable Cases section of the current page, so they therefore must feel the additions I am suggesting helped the page. I would be happy to discuss the page further and re post my proposed changes, and I am open to all advice and guidance. Kind regards ShimsCabot (talk) 10:06, 4 January 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShimsCabot (talk • contribs) [reply]

• Delete I had updated links to multiple references that are used in the article over recent days, so that it would be easier for any editors to assess the published material. The articles that I have seen are all reporting on cases where McGuire's firm were at work. In these articles there are quotes attributed to McGuire. There are multiple examples of his firm pursuing damages on behalf of their clients, but I don't see any references that indicate any "campaigning" beyond this. The paid editing aspects here are unfortunate. Drchriswilliams (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. My initial instinct was to delete, based on the fact none of the 18 references provided mention the subject's name. But a quick web search reveals plenty of reliable, third-party coverage. I see three sources which I feel are enough to meet GNG. Article needs some improvement, but I think deletion in this instance is a little hasty. Please note, my initial edit summary said delete, but I did indeed mean keep.^[1][2][3]> MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you clarify, @MarchOfTheGreyhounds:. You say 'plenty', but cite only two, one of which - lawyer-of-the-month - is parochial and routine. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi, Maybe I can provide some more sources. All of the following supported the redrafted content I had provided in my Sandbox page. I can provide more if necessary: ^{[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]} ShimsCabot (talk) 08:46, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, first off let me apologize for sloppy, tired editing last night, including citing the same source twice. Let me reconsider. What do you think of this source, where McGuire's actions are the focus of the article?

  The bulk of sources provided here by ShimsCabot won't quite cut it, as the subject is only quoted or mentioned in these articles, he isn't their focus. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 23:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I would like to add another source, on a current subject. Patrick campaigned on behalf of COVID victims and their families calling for a full Scottish Public Inquiry into how the pandemic was handled in Scotland (initially, the Government had said there would not be an inquiry). The article details McGuire's open letter to Deputy First Minister, John Swinney in relation to the scope of the Inquiry and whether it will have the necessary powers to see justice done. ShimsCabot (talk) 08:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also have other sources, not from news outlets, which show Patrick's involvement in Scottish and UK Parliament Justice and Working Committees and drafting/advising on Members' Bills. While they are not 'about' Patrick McGuire, they prove the types of notable work he engages in and how he has been commended for this work. I hope this helps. ^{[13][14][15][16][17]}ShimsCabot (talk) 14:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 13:10, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:24, 16 January 2022 (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.