Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Glickman


 * 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. joe deckertalk to me 15:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Joshua Glickman

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This individual does not appear to be particularly notable. (Article also was likely written by the subject of the article, based upon the person's user name, and the fact that I don't think it's likely anyone else would have written a Wiki article on this individual.) JoelWhy (talk) 12:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, people in these positions are pretty much 100% non-notable, and we'd need far more coverage than this guy appears to get to demonstrate otherwise. Nyttend (talk) 12:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, unless I'm not awake yet, I can't find where he's mentioned on the Commission's page that was cited. Also, the better part of the lede looks lifted word-for-word from this   Wikipelli  Talk   12:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete No serious claim to notability. TJRC (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree with above. Nothing notable about attorney. Additionally, I have strong concerns about WP:PROMOTION here, as mentioned in the deletion nom statement. Lord Roem (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2012 (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.