Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rob Graham


 * 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. Sam Walton (talk) 11:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Rob Graham

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable lawyer, although it does (did?) represent notable clients. Looks like a promotional piece too, and I note the law firm mentioned has a suspended website and deleted Twitter account which indicates that perhaps if no longer exists. Shritwod (talk) 14:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have added some references about current misconduct allegations. Although they make the subject more notable (the original was simply a puff piece IMO), I am also aware that Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Thoughts welcomed. Shritwod (talk) 07:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Article looks at first glance like simple PR –Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Update: Some reliable sources do exist regarding the subject's alleged disappearance and theft of funds: the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Las Vegas Sun, and a local news station. Until the case gets wider attention, however, it doesn't seem notable enough for an encyclopedia entry – WP:NOTNEWS. The subject is also not a "renowned national or international figure" nor is the event a "well-documented historic event" per WP:CRIME. The presumption of innocence and privacy per Biographies of living persons militate against creating an encyclopedia article about the event or the person as yet. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Curious, notability does seem to have increased with the new press coverage. I AfDed the article after an issue was raised on the BLP noticeboard on 8th December before the press coverage came out but after the state bar had suspended his license. Without wanting to out an IP editor, it is of note that the BLP query appeared to come from another law firm which might explain why they were ahead of the news. So, this does seem like a potentially developing article right at the moment. Shritwod (talk) 10:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * According to Notability, "If reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual". Robert C. Graham, the subject of this article, seems likely to remain "a low-profile individual". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Looks self-promoting PR with personal hype; links don't work; company closed; lacking verified information throughout "Delete" no lesser use viable —inchmahom 10:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable lawyer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, poorly sourced and appears promotional. Sagecandor (talk) 11:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete The public must be made aware that attorneys' trust accounts that hold clients' money are venerable. What Robert Graham and his wife Linda M. Graham did was not only immoral, unethical, but clearly a crime. Attorneys are not above the law. Chaos4tu (talk) 02:00, 12 December 2016 (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.