Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George T. Lee


 * 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. While appreciate the keep arguments, there's one thing to note - notability cannot be established on the promise that an article will become notable after having a Wikipedia entry. Recursion is messy, and also unverifiable - article notability is extracted from the present, not the future (see here for more explanation). If Mr. Lee becomes notable in the future, then an article can be created. Any questions are welcome on my talk page. Cheers, m.o.p  19:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

George T. Lee

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article is purely a promotional piece for a lawyer. I can find no evidence of notability per WP:BIO. Has been tagged for notability for nearly a year. Orlady (talk) 22:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions.  —Orlady (talk) 22:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Does not meet the requirements for Notability. --Ozgod (talk) 22:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability has not been established. - SudoGhost&trade; 01:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Targeted Google search reveals a small haystack with few likely needles. No assertion of encyclopedia-worthiness made in the article, which reads like a cross between a family tree and an advertisement. Both of these are no-nos. Carrite (talk) 03:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Do not Delete Notability is quite clear actually. Mr. Lee is an authority in an emerging area of law that is highly relevant today (Dodd Frank, funds and family offic) and a known speaker (his lectures in the area are very well attended). His lineage is also noteworthy.  The above commentators - while applying the rules - surely know little about this specialization or understand Mr. Lee's contributions in these area.  Keep in mind that notability is increasingly being established by a wikipedia entry (not vice versa). 11:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.163.225.234 (talk)   — 209.163.225.234 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep I have personally contributed to Mr. Lee's entry and have spent time and effort doing so. There are few authorities in George Lee's area of law of his caliber and note.  Most recently, his contributions, including as to recent federal rules on family office structure following Dodd Frank, have been meaningful in themselves and of continuing professional and public interest.  As stated immediately above, the entry for George Lee itself is helpful in educating as to noteworthiness. Starksrile 2:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)      — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starksrile (talk • contribs)   — Starksrile (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep Please maintain this - would like to see more on Mr. George Lee. I navigated to him on a review of the recent family office rules, read his letter and understand he was a potent/important voice on behalf of some of the bigger ones with the SEC.  This is a tough area to obtain information on and will grow in importance.  I have heard Lee is quite close with a number of large family offices ($billion+) and relied on by them.  The fact that the families and Lee seek to remain "under the radar" probably explains why there isn't much out there at this time.  We should keep the entry and encourage more information on Lee. - katielexie 7:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katielexie (talk • contribs)   — Katielexie (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment If it will grow in importance, then when that happens, and sufficient notability can be established, the article can be recreated. As it stands, however, the article does not meet that very important criteria. - SudoGhost&trade; 01:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete It is obvious that George T. Lee is not significant and not worthy of being an article. He does not meet the standards of Wikipedia, but if he ever does somehow reach standards of Wikipedia then this article can be recreated. This article does not meet the necessary criteria for an article on Wikipedia, for now.--Ltuck3 (talk) 22:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment If GTL is a major figure in fund law and family office law (which I understand him to be from sources), shouldn’t we want the bio to encourage the information. Having influential figures tied to powerful people continuing to operate under the radar screen and out of public view not necessarily in the public interest. This notability stuff is really a*^ backwards – just my 2 cents.  But the debate is intriguing – would KEEP the bio - 01:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.163.225.234 (talk • contribs)  — 209.163.225.234 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete. It's unclear whether the article's existing citations demonstrate notability, and given the typical use-of-Wikipedia-for-promotional-purposes commentary on this AfD, it doesn't seem we can safely take the article creators' word for it.  Source review is difficult given the commonness of the subject's name and the historical figures who have shared it, but a reasonable effort does not readily turn up notability-demonstrating coverage. —chaos5023 (talk) 05:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable (yet) and article is promotional. "notability is increasingly being established by a wikipedia entry" is not a reason to keep this article. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise for someone.--EdwardZhao (talk) 17:33, 5 July 2011 (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.