Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Kellogg


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 20:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Michael Kellogg

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

notability is not established. The rationale (which I think was used to contest the prod some months ago) is basically WP:CRYSTAL, that the article will be of use "in the future" whenever this supposed trial resolves. However, this trial is not even listed as a representative matter on the law firm's website, and there is no information on the results of the hearing available. MSJapan (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Here are some potential sources covering the subject's involvement in the cases described in the article: . Phil Bridger (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that at least put s some sort of closure on the thing. The first article at link 2 clearly states that the case was thrown out, so whatever notoriety Kellogg may have speculatively gained is now a moot point.  The AT&T case is simply not enough to meet notability criteria, especially since the article creator's point was the 9/11 Saudi connection and what the case was going to do when it went to trial.  In short, a lot of assumption over adherence to policy. MSJapan (talk) 07:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.   --  fr33k  man   -s-  15:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Nothing significant on this person. Seems very much a one eventer. --neon white talk 00:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable, one (losing) event guy. --Ged UK (talk) 07:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Two really major cases, one of international significance, and adequate sources for them.DGG (talk)
 * Keep enough coverage in reliable secondary sources to meet the GNG. RMHED . 23:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  Aitias   // discussion 00:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete One eventer, per WP:BIO. And the coverage was for the lawsuit he was in not himself. Lets  drink Tea 00:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * how do multiple lawsuits getto be one event? DGG (talk) 05:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. There are no sources which indicate that he is notable at present. If and when he becomes notable as a member of the judiciary or a national leader of the legal professional, we can create an article on him then. Capitalistroadster (talk) 05:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * a lawyer's notability is from the work he does. Lead council in a particularly major case covered by general national sources is sufficient. OneEvent does not rationally apply if the even is sufficiently notable--but it would not apply anyway as he had other important cases. Though one must be a lawyer to become a judge, its a different career. I accept that demonstrating the notability of lawyers and businessmen is a little tricky under our usual roles, because there's less concrete things to point to than creative professions or office-holders. DGG (talk) 19:45, 25 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.