Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Fogelnest


 * 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. Assertions of Fogelnest's notability were not backed up by specific sources, weakening keep arguments. Assertions about the article's authorship have been ignored. lifebaka++ 00:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Robert Fogelnest

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I was not able to find good sources verifying this person's notability. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  D u s t i *poke* 02:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: article needs to be improved, but 138 Gnews hits, many of them non-trivial indicates notability.  Dewritech (talk)  15:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete The author blanked the page in this edit. The article was eligible for a speedy delete per G7 at that point. Perhaps, rather than restoring the edits and nominating for deletion, as the proposer did, it would make more sense to revert the reversion of the blanking and add  to the top of the article. JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve he had Ghits and a notable career. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Article needs work, and I'm not sure how notable being the pres of a national legal org is, but I'm in doubt enough to say keep for now.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 00:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

--Bobbyd2011 (talk) 09:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not notable. Article appears to be started by subject, who is a sockpuppet. Looks like he threatened legal action against WP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lawline
 * Delete, page reads like a short resume; Wikipedia is not a directory of people who have had careers. Abductive  (reasoning) 14:55, 8 February 2011 (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.