Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howard I. Goldstein


 * 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. Talk Islander 01:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Howard I. Goldstein

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Doesn't seem notable per Wikipedia standards Nerfari (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets at least the minimum standard for notability for me. Also, article has been around since 2006 without seemingly being tagged for anything before now. In Wikipedia terms, that's a long time. Peridon (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there a Grandfather clause I don't know about? LOL Nerfari (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Dunno. Strikes me that someone would have tagged this by now if there were a possibility of NN. Peridon (talk) 20:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe everyone else was thinking the same thing :) Nerfari (talk) 20:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone removed 'puffery' - they didn't consider him NN. Peridon (talk) 20:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete He's just a lawyer. Not notable enough for inclusion. Martinmsgj 20:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as failing the general notability criteria by means of having had no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, to coin a phrase. Simply fails to assert notability in his field.  one brave  monkey  13:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete unless more can be found about his legal career. The other activities are too minor to be significant. That we just noticed something here a long time is NN is not a reason to avoid deleting it once we do notice. The older content needs review from time to time. DGG (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable lawyer. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:04, 26 February 2009 (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.