Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Franklin Lyons


 * 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. j⚛e deckertalk 02:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Franklin Lyons

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable attorney, fails WP:BASIC. Similar to WP:Articles for deletion/Edward H. Royle, created by the same user. Zanhe (talk) 06:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 06:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 06:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 06:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Looks like a publicity piece to me. He is a lawyer who occasionally puts out a podcast and serves on the boards of a few orgs,  No indication that he is notable. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a prosified résumé, relying almost entirely on primary sources, for a lawyer who doesn't really show even the slightest evidence of passing WP:LAWYERS at all. The most substantive notability claim he's got here is "provided legal commentary to the media on a couple of news stories" — but that does not bestow notability on a lawyer, because he's not the subject of that coverage. And the photo is far too casual, both in dress and in setting, to have been taken by anybody who doesn't know the subject personally — so there's almost certainly a WP:COI issue here, too. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 08:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As I have already mentioned before, WP:LAWYERS was not intended by its author to be a exhaustive listing of every factor that might make a lawyer notable. James500 (talk) 12:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * None of Wikipedia's subject-specific notability guidelines is a perfectly "exhaustive listing of every factor that might make a practitioner of that field of endeavour notable" — they all leave open the possibility of exceptions or points that might not have been previously considered. That's why they're called guidelines and not decrees. But that has no bearing on the matter at hand, which is that this article isn't making or reliably sourcing any claim that would pass even the most liberal interpretation of any of Wikipedia's inclusion tests. Bearcat (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - he badly fails my standards for lawyers. He's literally done nothing of note: no law review, no moot court leadership, no major appellate wins, no clerkship, no published or edited articles, no academic service, not yet Q.C., no partnership nor ownership stake in a law firm, no public service, no political campaign of his own.  Quite bluntly, this person appears to be as run of the mill as your average junior associate could be. Bearian (talk) 22:14, 17 November 2014 (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.