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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:20, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James Sokolove[edit]

James Sokolove (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Does not meet WP:BIO or WP:BASIC. All coverage is WP:LOCAL - partocularly, the article is almost entirely sourced to one article in Boston Magazine, and the other source (used once) is the Boston Business Journal. I removed some information that was sourced directly to his company bio as SPS. The subject is likely well-known from local TV ads, but there is not one notable case in which he has been involved that has made even the local news. There is in fact a remarkable dearth of coverage given the length of his career (30 years with his own firm, plus prior experience). There is a fair bit of criticism recently about his company, but that is separate from his status as a biographical subject. MSJapan (talk) 01:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Comment - I made several changes to the article, including adding a few sources, removing some fluff and adding a criticism section. He's a controversial figure as the firm's head and its spokesperson/face. He's been involved himself in public talks and misc. legal initiatives (e.g. the Roadmap to Justice Project through Stanford, which I didn't include because I don't know much about it yet). He doesn't try cases himself so you won't find any. His law firm acts only as lead generators for other firms. ...And that's a big part of why he's notable. He started in Boston -- and is, I'm sure, best known there -- but has grown to be national (select states). ...Anyway, take a look at the article as it stands now. There's enough there, and I'm posting more sources on the talk page if someone wants to expand further. --Rhododendrites (talk) 06:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply If I understand you correctly, what you're saying is that he doesn't really do anything to be notable that you can really figure out, but that his firm is notable for its business practices. Scope of coverage aside, notability is not inherited. If the notability is his firm, then this should be an article about the LLC with a small blurb on him, not the other way around. Also, you've got the exact same date (meaning D,M, and Y) on two apparently independent sources, so that might need another look. MSJapan (talk) 16:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. It is he that is well known, he is the one who gets the press (with mention of "& Associates" as secondary), and he who is the controversial figure. In other words, he is the brand (which he is even looking to franchise according to one of the cited sources) while his law firm(s) have gone by many different names. If he's not notable, the law firm certainly isn't. --Rhododendrites (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, He's the first attorney in the U.S. to create a large scale legal business based on TV advertising. He's one of the most well-known attorneys and television faces in the United States, and his associates practice in all 50 states (http://www.onthemedia.org/story/159134-upside-legal-advertising/transcript/). I don't know of any other lawyer that has done that. Clearly notable albeit controversial. Swampyank (talk) 17:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He certainly has more notoriety in Boston (growing up there, it was hard to miss his TV ads). But he does have coverage outside of Boston media, such as this blog post from the Wall Street Journal's law blog and the Madison-St. Clair Record. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 08:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or rework into an article about his company. According to the article his associates operate in every state, so he doesn't seem to be of purely local notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:33, 19 November 2013 (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.