Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Gordon (lawyer)


 * 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. Mr.Z-man 21:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Jeffrey Gordon (lawyer)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:PROMOTION mostly seems more advertising than BLP notability &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;   &#9743;(talk)  23:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. I disagree with the nomination in that what elements could be construed as promotional are written neutrally, or at least require some assumption of bad faith to be read as non-neutral. My concern is that the individual elements don't seem to make this individual notable outside of a very strict reading of the notability rules—most of the sources are poor or don't indicate much lasting notability. Given that I find it highly unlikely that other articles will link to this one, I'm leaning delete. In case it's relevant, I'd also like to mention that I declined the speedy deletion (G11 and/or A7) of this article. {&#123; Nihiltres &#124;talk&#124;edits&#124;⚡}&#125; 23:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete as failing every factor, as far as I can see, of my standards for notable attorneys. While he appears to be doing a good job as a lawyer, and he no doubt makes a good living as partner of a larger firm, he is only doing what is required by ABA Model Rule 1.1.  Now, if somebody can find evidence that he's actually done something special, rather than being run of the mill, then I would change my mind. Bearian (talk) 17:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sourcing is insufficient to indicate notability, and article is promotional. Coretheapple (talk) 16:02, 9 October 2013 (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.