Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Blood


 * 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.  So Why  06:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Patrick Blood

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG/WP:BIO. Most mentions are statements in a case about a restraining order. This does not, however, rise to "significant coverage"-levels required. Kleuske (talk) 00:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Mr. Blood has been cited in hundreds of publications due to a current matter relating to his client Karrueche Tran. Upon Googling "Patrick Blood Karrueche" and finding many results, this does rise to "significant coverage". Perhaps more citations needed but this is significant coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheAmericanIdol (talk • contribs) 00:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Google searches revealed many passing mentions (most as "X's other lawyer") in articles about a celeb-spat. That does not establish notability. What is needed is "significant coverage" and I haven't found any. Kleuske (talk) 00:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

The Google searches sometimes mention a co-counsel named Michelle Trigger but in the Google results, Mr. Blood has been quoted on this high publicity matter on almost every major celebrity/entertainment website covering this (E, HollywoodLife, New York Daily News, just to name a few). There does appear to be significant coverage. Further, as the former Vice President of a major entertainment company makes him a well known entertainment and celebrity attorney. I would recommend that in light of the foregoing that 'significant coverage' has been met. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheAmericanIdol (talk • contribs) 00:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, being quoted about someone else does not constitute coverage of him. Being VP of a company just makes him good at his job, it doesn't make him encyclopedically notable. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 16:57, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, there is plenty of precedent on Wikipedia for a view that merely being quoted repeatedly in the press is not enough to push one past the WP:GNG, if those quotes pertain to another topic. Of the sources out there where Blood is mentioned, none of them are primarily about Blood, which is what we look for.  This doesn't mean that he's not a decent person or not good at his job, but we need substantial and independent sources if we hope to write a decent and impartial biography on someone.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:11, 2 June 2017 (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.