Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gale P. Elston


 * 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 arguments for keep seem to boil down to the basis of inherited notability, and as notability is not inherited this is a delete. The Bushranger One ping only 04:39, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Gale P. Elston

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I fail to see notability here - mentions are in court reports etc but these are peripheral and not substantive. It reads like a biography of a moderately successful attorney who has had some C list celebrity clients. Nothing here qualifies for WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk 23:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Gale P. Elston is extremely well-known in the international art scene. Her clients include very notable and famous artists like Willem De Kooning and Andy Warhol, not “C-list celebrities” as Velella put it. Please consider the legitimacy of this article in context of the international art world. --Sachamcd (talk) 00:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)sachamcd
 * Too bad that you did not read the article or the sources. She represented neither Willem De Kooning nor Andy Warhol in those cases; she represented Pavia and Latamie, respectively. Nonetheless, notability is not inherited, it is coverage of her that goes to notability. --Bejnar (talk) 05:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak delete Court cases are not ABOUT the person, although a news article about a court case could be. The news articles here mostly have mentions of her name (although at least one does not have that). None are about her, none have substantial information about her. Perhaps there is more coverage in specialized art press, but I was unable to find anything in sources I have access to. LaMona (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete lawyers like journalists have their names appear frequently, but they generally lack coverage because no one writes about them. That is the case here, there is no significant coverage of her.  Lots of the citations in her article are also to primary sources showing that she has done things, but failing to show that she has received much recognition for it. Fails WP:GNG, fails WP:NOTEBIO. I started this the other day when I fixed some of the citations in her article (the rest are still a mess), and given the plea to consider the international art scene, I searched various of Gale Group's commercial databases, including their "Pop Culture Collection", "Popular Magazines", "Fine Arts and Music Collection" and "Wilson Art Index".  All I found was a mention of her as the attorney in a 2006 landlord-tenant dispute and a 1994 re-cap of the De Kooning case in The Times that briefly mentioned her as Pavia's attorney.  All-in-all I find no particular claim to notability, and she fails WP:GNG. --Bejnar (talk) 05:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep notable figure in intellectual property law.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you be specific as to what multiple independent reliable sources establish her notability in intellectual property law? She does not appear to meet any of the criteria at WP:PROF. She seems not to have publihed in the field, nor did I find any citations to her intellectual property law work. I did find that she has handled several legal cases involving intellectual property, but they are not cited for her work. The only academic entry I found was a thanks in a law review article for the materials that she had provided to the author.  --Bejnar (talk) 00:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - not seeing enough in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 14:22, 26 December 2015 (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.