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. If anyone wishes to explore a reframe/renaming of the content as per Vanamonde93, I am happy to undelete and draftify at any good-faith request on my talk page. Daniel (talk) 11:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Helfend Meyer[edit]

Lisa Helfend Meyer (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)

Subject is named as a lawyer in a number of news items, but I see no evidence that she has "gained national recognition" or some such thing; really none of the sources discuss her as a person, as a lawyer, etc. Judging from the sources, she's only "known" for being sanctioned, a fact conveniently left out of this fluffy biography. I do not believe this person is notable. Drmies (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: creator restored this bit of resume info, which I removed before I decided there wasn't anything in the article that could claim notability. I'm not going to remove it: visitors to this AfD can decide the value of claims such as "has been quoted as a legal expert" is verified by self-penned pieces such as this. Drmies (talk) 23:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  "legal expert" portion is off the page BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 00:22, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY, WP:NBIO, WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV: Gender diversity on Wikipedia is important, especially in the field of law. Lisa represented the woman in the Trevor Bauer case and Trevor Bauer verbally attacked her on "X" which garnered over 70 million views and Elon Musk shared conspiracy theories about Lisa on "X" which received over 11 million views, claiming she withheld evidence and suggested "Counter-suit?", Lisa represented Dr Dre's ex-wife, Lisa represented google founder's ex-wife, and others tbd... Lisa Helfend Meyer had 100s of articles written about her and tv appearances when she represented a woman who suffered severe brain damage during the birth of her triplets... also see Laura Wasser for reference who is often the competing attorney in her cases. BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, I am tired of working on this page today. I will refrain unless I am required to in order to prevent deletion. BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 05:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A great deal of editing has gone on with this article since its nomination and I think it is worth some additional time to review and reevaluate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:41, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as an initial note, I removed sources from the article, including WP:PAGESIX, court records, and Twitter [1], as well as blog posts [2], [3]. In the article, sources include a "LA Times Content Solutions" source which is a promotional interview. There are also five sources listed to support article content stating Meyer gained national recognition for a case - but the coverage is about the case, without indication that anything about Meyer's work specifically became a focus of coverage or recognition. Then there are five sources about a case she lost, including what appears to be a duplicated AP reprint. There is also a Vanity Fair article that briefly mentions her twice in the same paragraph, about a deposition she conducted, and the court not making an adverse inference against the opposing party. There is also a non-working link to a Yahoo source, the archive version shows it is Madamenoire, recycling WP:PAGESIX etc. There is also Venture Blvd, which looks a lot like a blog, and a Whittier Daily News source about her and her husband and their house. There is also her HuffPost contributor profile, a link to something she wrote at CSQ, another profile page, and then three more news reports about court cases mentioning her briefly, including WP:TMZ. Based on the available sources, it does not appear possible to write a balanced biography that is not WP:PROMO, and WP:BASIC/WP:GNG also does not seem supported by independent, reliable, and secondary coverage. Beccaynr (talk) 22:04, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  it no longer says "gained national recognition" BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 19:45, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I also note WP:SPORTSKEEDA has been added as a reference [4], but this source is "considered generally unreliable due to a consensus that there is little or no editorial oversight over the websites content, which is largely user-written" at WP:RSP. Beccaynr (talk) 19:54, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Regarding the Abbie Cohen Dorn case, Meyer's work is in fact the focus of coverage in more articles than I can count. Each article includes a quote from her, suggesting that she was important in the end result. Here are a few more. Severely disabled, is she still a mother?, Does quadriplegic have right to visit kids?, Court fight waged over brain-damaged mom's triplets BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 22:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  See the Jewish Chronicle where "Meyer points to the California Family Code, which says that the public policy of this state is to make sure children have frequent and continuing contact with both parents." Meyer was also in a 48 Hours (TV program) episode talking about it. BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 22:53, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Secondary coverage could include independent and reliable sources that analyze, evaluate, or interpret of her role and impact in the case - essentially some form of commentary about her role. From my view, that type of coverage, even if it is brief, could be combined with other independent, reliable, secondary coverage according to the WP:BASIC guideline to help support her notability. Beccaynr (talk) 23:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  To highlight her impact in the Abbie Cohen Dorn case, and the significance of the ruling, I have added more material to the article. BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 00:40, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The source cited [5] for the new article content "As a first case of its kind, the result set a precedent for future cases of a similar nature, having implications for other disabled parents seeking child visitation rights" does not say this - it says "An unprecedented, horrific legal dispute is coming up in LA." The new article content appears to be original research - an independent, reliable, secondary source discussing the impact of this case is needed, because we cannot make original interpretations of sources. Beccaynr (talk) 01:27, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Meyer said ""There is no case in point that addresses Abbie's particular circumstance, whether someone in her condition has a constitutional right to parent or visit her children." example 1 "This is a precedent-setting case"example 2 example 3 and ABC30 article says "Lawyers on both sides say the ruling could have implications for other disabled parents". I will change the wording to say "could". BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 01:38, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Meyer referring to the case as having no case on point (example 1) or as "precedent-setting" [6] (example 2/CNN Wire), [7] (example 3/Associated Press) does not support saying the case "set a precedent" in WP:WIKIVOICE; this is commentary by Meyer about the case, not commentary by an independent reliable source about the case. A source saying opposing counsel noted there could be "implications" for other parents and children in the future does not support referring to this family law trial court decision as precedent - no independent and reliable source appears to have said this trial court decision is precedent. Beccaynr (talk) 02:22, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - why is Laura Wasser not WP:PROMO? If I can uncover more sources that meet the requirements, will you reconsider? Other sources are available that were never added (hopefully secondary, independent, notable), but why should I bother wasting my time and adding them if the odds of this article remaining seem low. BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 18:36, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There is an essay titled Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions that can be helpful to consider, including the What about article x? section, essentially "Plenty of articles exist that probably should not. [...] So just pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists does not prove that the article in question should also exist; it is quite possible that the other article should also be deleted but nobody has noticed it and listed it for deletion yet." However, if there are reliable sources that provide independent and secondary coverage of Meyer, I encourage listing them here for consideration, because this could influence the outcome of this discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 19:49, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay. Please be a bit patient with me as I attempt to compile acceptable sources and show notability. I am sort of busy since it is Christmas Eve. First off, does this source (Attorney at Law Magazine) provide any use for the Wikipedia page? Lisa Helfend Meyer: It’s a Woman’s World BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 22:04, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Please do note the discussion was relisted at 19:41 21 December 2023, so it is likely to run until at least 28 December 2023. As to the Attorney at Law Magazine source, this does not seem helpful for supporting notability because this source is primarily based on an interview with Meyer and two of her co-workers, so this substantially lacks independence; another concern is the source generally: a Target Market Media trade publication, based on the About page, which does not list staff nor editorial standards. Beccaynr (talk) 22:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I researched all the above criticisms. Considerable updates have been made to this page since the last discussion. Removed fluffy language, added reliable sources (removed generally unreliable sources to the best of my ability), removed Meyer's clients Sebastien Izambard, Donna D'Errico, Kenya Barris, Kelly Clarkson ex-husband found in court docs but without RS sources, and included more details about the Abbie Cohen Dorn case while avoiding what may appear to be original research. I plan on digging into the Trevor Bauer case in more detail to highlight Meyer's involvement. Thank you for sharing recommendations on how you think I can improve an article. BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 20:57, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Developing encyclopedic content requires more than verifiability, particularly in biographies of living people. Various policy-based reasons include (according to WP:NOTNEWS) the need to consider the enduring notability of people, because most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style, and because Wikipedia is not a means of promotion, e.g. Wikipedia articles about a person, company, or organization are not an extension of their website, press releases, or other social media marketing efforts. And when developing an article, particularly with sensationalized news coverage, the WP:NOTSCANDAL policy should be considered, because content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy - parties to cases are also protected by BLP policy.
  So the HuffPo contributor and CSQ Magazine contributor profiles, news reports about other people that briefly mention Meyer represents a party, a post from informationliberation.com about an "Instahoe" and Elon Musk comments, and a link to a podcast Meyer appeared on, do not help support notability nor develop encyclopedic content according to guidelines or policy. If there is independent, reliable, secondary coverage about Meyer and/or her work, I continue to encourage posting sources in this discussion, to make review easier, because Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 22:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Here is what I believe to be independent, reliable, and secondary coverage of the Abbie Cohen Dorn case. Whether you think it is enduring notability, depends on your interpretion of her role and impact in the case based on the collective commentary 345678910111213141516. BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 03:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• The sources listed above are news coverage of the case, without substantial secondary analysis, evaluation, or commentary about Meyer, and include some reprinted Associated Press coverage; there are brief mentions of Meyer, often based on quotes:

This WP:BOMBARDMENT seems to help show there were two flurries of coverage, in April 2010 and March 2011, and we do not have information about what happened after the temporary court order, and there also does not seem to be substantial commentary about the impact of the case nor Meyer's role. Based on the notability guideline, building a neutral and balanced article does not seem possible if the article will primarily be based on brief mentions in sensationalized news focused on other subjects. Beccaynr (talk) 05:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At the current moment, I might agree with you. Although Meyer is quoted saying “we think that this is just the beginning, that their time with their mother will increase as they get older", I see no evidence that the court order is still in effect. The most recent article on this case was in 2016. However, if there is a similar case in the future, I imagine more details will emerge. BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 18:58, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above in the source review, the 2016 date of the "Let's Talk" opinion piece in The Jewish Chronicle appears to be inaccurate, based on the content of the article, which is based on the April 2010 LATimes/Pioneer Press reporting about the pretrial hearing. And as repeatedly noted, Meyer's promotion of her own importance or the importance of the case is not independent support for her notability. And our own opinions or speculation about what may happen in the future does not help support notability or encyclopedic content. Beccaynr (talk) 19:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given the direction this conversation has gone, and after searching for sources long enough, I think this article should be deleted. BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 21:58, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Dorn was scheduled to receive three-hour visits daily for five days each summer at her parents' residence in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. Alongside the five-day visits, Abbie Dorn also was able to speak with her children by Skype for 30 minutes on the first Sunday of each month in an attempt to maintain a parental relationship with them. The ruling also required the father to display photographs of Abbie Dorn on a table or shelf in the children’s bedrooms. As I said, this ruling could play a role for future cases but missing the sources needed to support claims. BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 19:02, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Hesitant delete, though I would also support a rename/reframe. The coverage that I can see that has any substance has to do with the 2011 case involving visitation rights. There is a lot of such coverage, but it seems to be tangential to the lawyer and focused on the case. To me this suggests the case is notable, and the lawyer is not, as everything else is constructed of passing mentions. I don't think detailed coverage of a single case necessarily makes a lawyer notable. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:31, 29 December 2023 (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.