Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romie Tager

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. The analysis of the sources claiming to provide notability is compelling. Black Kite (talk) 00:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Romie Tager

[edit]
Romie Tager (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)

Not every Queen's Counsel merits an article. The coverage of him as a lawyer is very thin - a couple of passing mentions in sources looking at cases in which he has appeared, not looking at him. His charitable / political donations do not make him notable. The main section of the article is about his role in the administration of his father's estate, which is not brilliantly sourced and smacks of BLP1E in any event. Overall, fails WP:BIO because we have trivial mentions added together to try and pad out a BLP1E. If he is primarily known as a lawyer and is notable by WP standards for that, then the article should concentrate on that - if there is insufficient coverage of him for that, then the other fluff and trivia does not an article make. BencherliteTalk 09:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Easily meets WP:BASIC "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". BLP1E is intended to apply only to people who have received coverage for a single event, who are likely to remain low-profile, and the individual's role in that event was either not substantial or not well documented. There is coverage of Tager in RSs going back to 2008/09, I don't think he could be called low profile, and I don't think his activities in various contexts could be called unsubstantial or poorly documented. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Significant coverage? He specialises in commercial and property law. He has represented former member of parliament David Mellor in connection with a dispute over the purchase of an antiques company, and in 2014, he successfully acted for film director Gary Love against the restauranteur Gordon Ramsey.[6] Tager is currently representing Vincent Tchenguiz in his £2.2 billion claim against the accountants Tchenguiz says deliberated orchestrated a Serious Fraud Office investigation into his affairs.[7] His specialism is currently unsourced. His representation of David Mellor is currently unsourced. The Love—Ramsey dispute is sourced to an article which mentions two questions that he asked. The Tchenguiz dispute is sourced to an article mentioning him as one of four barristers involved, but not in fact saying who he represents. That doesn't pass WP:BASIC. Thereafter:
      • Directorships - Tager is a director of a large number of companies, including some that formerly belonged to his late father is sourced to a database, which doesn't support the claim that some of the companies used to belong to his father. That he is a director of a "large number" of companies is a pure opinion - who says that it's a large number?
      • Ravenswood Foundation Tager is vice president of the Ravenswood Foundation[10] that provides a residential community in Berkshire run by the charity Norwood that provides a home for adults with learning difficulties - all that the source says about Tager is "While the music played, Lord Sacks, Rabbi Plancey, a member of Norwood’s advisory council, Ronnie Harris, Norwood’s vice president, Romie Tager, whose parents were a founding family of Ravenswood, Rabbi Salasnik and Rabbi Coton moved the scrolls from an old synagogue to a new one." The next sentence about his father is WP:NOTINHERITED territory. There's then a more substantial source about a donation he and his wife made, but the next two sentences are based on primary sources.
      • Tager has been a donor to the British Conservative Party is based on "Gove declares the largest number of office backers with 14 donors. These include the carpet millionaire Lord Harris, who also backed Osborne and the former shadow home secretary, David Davis; Manrows Ltd, a credit check company based in Knightsbridge, west London; Manro Haydan Trading Ltd, a City derivatives trading company also based in Knightsbridge; Alan Bekhor, a former London metals trader, estimated to be worth £80m; and Romie Tager, a wealthy commercial lawyer."
      • That then leaves the section about his father's estate which gets undue emphasis and gives the distinct impression that this is the real reason we have an article about him. BencherliteTalk 10:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • By listing all the times he has been mentioned you sort of prove my point that he meets BASIC don't you? But I will address your detailed comments by revising the article. I have just added a couple of additional notable cases. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trivial mention + trivial mention + trivial mention + primary sources + notinherited + undue negative weight on one issue does not equal substantial coverage passing WP:BIO. OK, so you've added something from his chambers website (not a great source), referred to the "UK High Court" (hint, there's no such thing - perhaps you mean the High Court of England and Wales) and a Court of Appeal case that wasn't important enough to get into the law reports, just into a digest, where (guess what?) he's mentioned in passing as having appeared. Still not seeing the notability. And if you think that you're entitled to add editorial commentary into an article about him having large, perhaps Wikipedia isn't the place for you. BencherliteTalk 10:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just added another case. I have corrected the name of the court. If I have made other errors in the exact legal referencing please point them out. You appear to be descending into personal attacks now. Please try to restrain yourself. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, there are no personal attacks in the above. Perhaps if you could find more than trivial mentions of his career we'd make more progress, rather than just trawling through BAILII for cases in which he has appeared - a list of appearances in cases does not evidence notability. BencherliteTalk 11:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "if you think that you're entitled to add editorial commentary into an article about him having large, perhaps Wikipedia isn't the place for you." Which may be paraphrased as "If you are not prepared to see things my way, just **** off". Philafrenzy (talk) 11:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if you want to play the game of completely rewriting something I said to turn it into a personal attack and then tell me off for making a personal attack, that's entirely your choice, but not exactly accurate, fair or productive. Perhaps just read it as a strongly worded reminder to an experienced editor (who should know better) not to add your personal opinions into articles (and I'm glad to see that you've since removed that opinion from the article). BencherliteTalk 12:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can we stick to the facts please. I am now logging off until later today. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. When it comes to sources, quantity is no substitute for quality, and despite the scratched-up coverage that's been found for the present article so far as I can determine there is insufficient secondary coverage of this person to merit an article. Alexbrn (talk) 13:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, trivia, non-notable, and WP:BLP1E. The first version of this bio came to my attention when its creator linked it to Helen Tager-Flusberg, the bio of an autism researcher that I created. That version was pretty clearly a BLP1E issue, engaging in original research and using very marginal (for a BLP) sources like DailyMail to implicate the son in the issue of the deceased father's will. After my queries about the BLP1E aspect, the nominator added additional sources (whose dubious quality and use is covered above), that still include marginal sources and original research and trivia. Many lawyers will get passing mention in a newspaper article when they defend even a marginally important case; using sources like:

to claim notability for this bio is indicative of the problems throughout this bio. After searching high and low for any non-trivial mention of the issue of the father's will, finding none, I removed text as a WP:BLP issue, which was then reinstated by the original nominator. In my search, I found nothing to indicate notability is met for this individual, and all I can find points to a coatrack, BLP1E attack bio.

Of concern is similar poorly sourced text at Osias Tager. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further, I am unable to find mention of Tager and his wife at Simcha, used as a source:
so, what the heck? I have removed what looked like an unncessary involvement of the wife, based on sources that don't seem to mention her. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reinstated the tax case. A highly unusual set of events with a £1 million fine. This is a Barrister we are talking about. The judge went out of his way to comment on how exceptional the case was. The material is a short section in neutral language at the end of the article that is supported by five refs. It certainly could be seen as negative, but I don't see how it can reasonably be seen as "trivia". Philafrenzy (talk) 18:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article has advanced somewhat (still uses primary sources and original research)[1] from the poorly sourced (tabloids, primary sources, and OR) version I first encountered, and it's too bad it took a lengthy AFD (sapping community resources) to make that happen. This is a living person. I hope Philafrenzy's future work will not use tabloids and primary sources and Words to avoid when writing about living people. Well, I would hope he wouldn't do that in writing about dead people, either, but Wikipedia has little teeth in dealing with that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nice try Sandy. This one was notable and well referenced from the start and is only listed here because you have an aversion (which I don't blame you for) to the Daily Mail. You could have worked with me on the article instead of supporting the AFD couldn't you? Philafrenzy (talk) 18:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Avoid personalization, thank you. Here is how the attempt to work with you ended, and the Daily Mail issue can be taken up at the Reliable sources noticeboard-- it is not my issue. Since you are writing BLPs, you should become familiar with these resources available to you on Wikipedia, as well as WP:BLP. All said and done, I would not be proud to have put up a BLP on 15 April, ignored the concerns expressed by multiple experienced editors, and then finally have someone else provide sources three weeks later. Nor would I be proud to have an article riddled with primary sources, but YMMV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You and Bencherlite were both warned in advance that this would meet BASIC as shown in the link you provide. It's not me that has wasted anyone's time here Sandy. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In what way is it "inherited"? Philafrenzy (talk) 22:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He is not an attorney. Attorneys were abolished and replaced by "solicitors" by the Judicature Act 1873. He is a barrister, which is something still different (and more likely to be notable because they are fewer in number and have greater rights of audience). James500 (talk) 12:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And a Queen's Counsel too, the most senior form of Barrister in the U.K. Appointed for "excellence in advocacy in the higher courts"[1] Philafrenzy (talk) 12:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.qcappointments.org/
  • Keep The subject passes WP:BASIC by dint of the breadth of coverage, rather than its depth, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". As the subject is notable for a variety of reasons including their status as a Queen's Counsel; high profile cases and clients; philanthropy; political donations and connections; tax affairs; &c. then WP:BLP1E does not apply. The article seems reasonably comparable with that about the sister - another distinguished professional - and compares well with the page about another QC which I sampled and which has been scrutinised and challenged but which is still here. This indicates that, as with footballers and sportmen, we don't set the bar very high here. Andrew D. (talk) 09:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Andrew Davidson, I searched high and low, and did find evidence of these high profile cases and clients. Can you produce some? The Daily Mail Online and a one-sentence mention of the attorney in a tabloid-style report aren't good examples of high profile cases ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Philafrenzy and Andrew Davidson. Also per inclusion in Debrett's People of Today and A & C Black's Who's Who [2] which, apart from satisfying GNG, have a reputation for not including non-notable individuals. BLP1E will not be relevant, because you don't get into those publications for getting a large fine. You are included for "pre-eminence", "influence" and "success". And even if you felt that mention of the fine was an "attack", you could remove that mention without deleting the whole thing. My thoughts on the notability of lawyers generally: All barristers are likely to be notable up to at least 1885, which is when the second edition of the biographical dictionary called "Men at the Bar" was published. In the case of the serjeants and QCs, that likelihood is a 100% absolute certainty. I am unsure of the notability of individuals who died at a young age. I am not sure how long that situation continues, but in 1901, the total number of barristers, at 1,147, (Report of the Royal Commission on Legal Services) was still significantly less than the number of QCs today, which exceeds fifteen hundred. Contemporary QCs are likely to be notable. Since their numbers are increasing in absolute terms (though they seem to have been on the order of 1% of the profession for some time), the longer ago they were appointed, the more likely they are to be notable. This one, according to Chambers and Partners, was appointed in 1995, when there were 891 QCs (HC Deb 13 November 2000 vol 356 c 545W). That isn't an obviously unacceptable number. If the number of QCs keeps increasing it may cease to be a useful indicator of notability. James500 (talk) 16:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following section (with five RS references) has been removed from the article again on the basis that it is a "trivial factoid":
"Romie Tager's father Osias Tager, died on 26 March 2005. He left no will. In 2015, the failure of Romie Tager as personal representative of his father's estate to deliver full details of his father's assets to the U.K. tax authorities, together with other failings relating to his personal tax returns, resulted in the imposition of a penalty of over £1.2 million on him. Romie Tager said that his father was secretive about money and that it had not been possible to accurately calculate the value of his estate due to his many shareholdings."
I contend that this is an important part of Tager's story (he resigned just before the facts came out), contributes to notability, is not undue because of Tager's position as a very senior lawyer and the size of the fine, and the matter has been dealt with neutrally and briefly. The arguments for and against are all on the talk page. I should welcome further comments here. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:03, 6 May 2015 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Romie_Tager&oldid=1077427482"