Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Loewy (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 01:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Adam Loewy
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Article about a non-notable individual that does not meet WP:NBASIC and WP:ANYBIO. As written, the article contains substantial evidence of WP:SPIP. A review of the sources reveals significant dead links and no feature coverage of any substance drawn from WP:RS. Multiple references to the subject’s own website. The prior AFD discussion to KEEP was supported by two editors who both have account blocks and were subject to WP:SOCK investigations. Further, a significant number of edits were made by an IP address 108.210.44.114 with a geolocation similar to the subject’s place of business. Recommend temporary block of IP address 108.210.44.114 along with investigation of article creator HGGore83 Volcom95 (talk) 01:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Law,  and Texas. Volcom95 (talk) 01:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Local attorney that seems to handle high-dollar value cases. His intro sentence says he founded a law firm. That isn't enough on which to build an article. The rest describes the cases he's handled, which seem to be the high value cases America is famous for, large cash settlements. The socking involved in the prior AfD is also a red flag. Oaktree b (talk) 03:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Promotional article about a non-notable attorney. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Pretty unambiguous advertising. Agree with above, fails WP:GNG but I'd have gone G11 personally. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete concur with previous statements, fails the GNG Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊  13:24, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. News coverage about cases in which the attorney is representing one of the parties is not substantive coverage. Oaktree b's assertion that this is just another local attorney who handles high-dollar cases seems correct. -- Kinu t/c 06:54, 26 June 2022 (UTC)


 * 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.