Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Stein


 * 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.  Sandstein  11:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Jacob Stein

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article written by, all of whose edits revolve around lawyer Jacob Stein. All of the articles the user edited and created are sourced primarily to, repeatedly credit, and otherwise promote lawyer Jacob Stein (including this bio article). As some of the work mentions use of Stein's material "with his permission," I have to assume WP:COI is a factor here, in addition to the more obvious WP:PROMO.There is a WP:BIO concern as well, but even if notability is established this may be a case for WP:NUKEANDPAVE.

For context, I came across these articles when I was going through edits of a[nother] spam-only account and noticed one site he/she added had been added to many other wiki pages, too. The site was maximumassetprotection.com, also run by Jacob Stein.

Also nominating Qualified personal residence trust and Foreign trust. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 06:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 06:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 06:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Comment The article was started in 2007 by . The initial text was subsequently edited and expanded by various other users (about 100 edits, 1500 -> 9500 bytes). Manzzoku (talk) 14:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Glad you pointed that out. As it turns out, multiple other accounts added promotional material (updates on where he's adjuncting now, adding minor/non-notable publications, etc.) to this article and added various links to Stein's site to other articles. That's not to say there are no good faith editors -- clearly there are, like Keithbob -- but even if there were more than that, it doesn't change any of the deletion rationale. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 15:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Delete Does not meet the notability standard. The article makes big claims, but they are not supported by independent reliable sources. --MelanieN (talk) 02:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Jacob Stein. Notability hasn't been established via reliable independent coverage. I found no such coverage. As for Qualified personal residence trust and Foreign trust, they do seem to be things that is defined and discussed in several sources, and I would suggest that they be listed separately. --Michig (talk) 09:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I'd be inclined to keep it. He is featured in a Robb Report issue. In a book by Robert Denham, published by CEB (Continuing Education of the Bar) he is mentioned as a source for offshore trusts (article available in the members area of California State Bar), fraudulent transfers and qualified personal residence trust (in the last case by managing to tackle creditor concerns about QRPT). Also editorial advisor of an asset protection book published by James Publishing. These only when searching QRPT related work, probably a more thoroughgoing search would reveal more. I included these sources in the introduction and I deleted the peacock words. Manzzoku (talk) 12:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   17:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - besides the obvious sourcing problems, and lack of any biography in either secondary or independent primary sources (such as a newspaper article with biographical details), he does not pass my standards for notable attorneys. I'd be willing to change my mind if somebody can point out even one reliable source that says he's an "expert" in his specific field.  Currently, this violates WP:NOTWEBHOST, but it could be fixed. Bearian (talk) 01:42, 15 January 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.