Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey A. Lustick


 * 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Jeffrey A. Lustick

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable person lacking significant coverage in reliable sources (WP:BIO, WP:GNG). Being the lawyer for a notable person does not automatically convey notability - even less so, being mentioned in passing in a local news article about a non-notable case. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - lacks non-trivial support. Minimal quotes and primary coverage only.  Lacks in-depth coverage.  Not even sure the cases are significant.   red dogsix (talk) 18:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  21:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  21:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  21:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Please do not delete. More edits have been made. I invite you all to give another critique. I have more to add with regard to Mr. Lustick's work as a sought-after legal analyst for TruTV/Court TV, etc. jjblackshear — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjblackshear (talk • contribs) 06:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep This article is full of facts and information that show that Lustick is relevant and notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sz643 (talk • contribs)
 * Comment - Once more, lacks non-trivial support. red dogsix (talk) 21:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - he is mentioned in a wide range of sources, but mostly just as someone-or-other's attorney. No significant coverage to suggest that he is notable. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as he is still questionably better for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister   talk  04:17, 27 March 2016 (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.