Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip E. Daniels


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Philip E. Daniels

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The only claim to notability is that this person has been an attorney for notable people. Unable to find any independent, reliable sources claiming he is significant in his field. Article also appears to have been created to provide a link into another article written by the same editor, The Restoring Music Foundation, which is also at AfD. Wine Guy  Talk  00:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - request for nomination as an AfD to be removed, as notability and independent reliable sources have been addressed. Thanks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pea12345 (talk • contribs) 11:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete NN BLP without significant coverage in RS. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 01:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree that the notability appears to be by association only. --Stormbay (talk) 01:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete the transitive property doesn't work for notability. Creator is trying to make a walled garden.   ~DC  Talk To Me 02:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - he is not a notable attorney, period. Bearian (talk) 04:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-notable lawyer. None of the claims appear to be backed by reliable sources, and even if they were, notability isn't inherited. -- B figura  (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per above- parts kinda read like a legal ad Ryan shell (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability issues have been resolved. Citations and links now included.  Subject is found in independent reliable sources with significant coverage showing notability in his field.Pea12345 (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC) — Pea12345 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment I looked over the links that were added, and I'm not really seeing any that establish notability. Most of them are brief mentions that either state that he represented his client on such-and-such a charge, or a paragraph giving notice that he have a seminar. None of the ones I saw gave any in-depth coverage that would meet the "non-trivial" requirement. (And establishing that he represents notable people probably isn't sufficient, given that notability isn't inherited.) -- B figura  (talk) 00:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Citations and links provide evidence notability in the field. Lawyer's are not like other professionals who receive significant coverage by main stream media, and niche publications and speaking engagement should suffice to establish notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.43.180.84 (talk) 02:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I know Philip E. Daniels. He is one of the industries top music attorneys.  I have made a full notation on this walled garden incident (it also contains some very insightful notes from Pea54321 regarding this matter, who I know for a fact to be Phil himself) see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Musicedbloggerman.  I would like to petition that this article be kept. His additions prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he has been in the business a long time and has proven himself to be a notable attorney by representing some of musics best talent as well as becoming a thought leader in the industry as a whole.  He is the real deal, I believe his new citations prove that beyond reason.  --Cdpurifoy (talk) 07:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment It appears that someone needs to produce some definitive proof of the notability of one of the industries top music attorneys. I can't find much. It still looks like a good candidate for removal despite the assertions. A couple of credible third party publications citing instances of important activity would have more weight than the petitions to keep.--Stormbay (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Respectfully disagree Stormbay. Lawyers tend to feature in niche publications.  I have updated the article to include coverage in Billboard, The Hollywood Reporter, which are high profile credible publications for the entertainment industry, as well as The Legal 500 (The Who's who of the law).  Coverage is non-trivial, having been quoted in The Washington Times on entertainment-related issues.Pea12345 (talk) 11:10, 20 January 2010 (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.