Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pascal zamprelli


 * 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 of the debate was Delete. Mailer Diablo 00:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Pascal zamprelli
Not many hits on Google using query "Pascal zamprelli" lawyer. Also, content of article sounds dodgy. --A bit iffy 13:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Presumably, if Zamprelli set a precedent in Canadian case law there will be a reference to the trial in an official legal journal? If this can be provided then the individual may well be notable.  If not, delete as unverifiable hoax.   (aeropagitica)   13:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * (Cite sources, Add Content, and Add Notability) or Delete. This is a stub, because there is not much information. Zamprelli is probably a real person and has probably done some notable work. There is a high risk of vanity. Cdcon  19:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Ardenn 21:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I work in the legal profession in Montreal and I can assure you that Mr. Zamprelli is a well-known and well respected lawyer in that community. While it is true that there aren't really any hits for him on google, that's because most of his work is recounted in small trade journals or word of mouth. Still, I feel that there is a certain bias on wikipedia towards including people who are "famous" in the sense that they have lots of links on the internet. It's not like Mr. Zamprelli's stub is taking up a lot of bandwidth. Leave it up. By the way, the legal precedent he set was not reported in an official reporter, though it was widely talked about in the legal profession... many important canadian legal judgements are never formally reported.
 * Delete per above. To the anon who posted the comment: content on Wikipedia is required to be verifiable, i.e. published in a reliable source. Stifle 16:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Unless verifable independent sources can be provided. Saying that important legal judgments are often not formally reported sounds very dubious too, if it's so important, wouldn't there be some verifyable records?  If some links to independent news articles, or  on this precedent were brought to light, or citation in a legitimate legal archive were provided it would be highly relevant.  --Wingsandsword 04:43, 1 March 2006 (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.