Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert S. Kwok


 * 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. - Mailer Diablo 14:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Robert S. Kwok
Successful attorney, but not any more notable than a lot of other successful attorneys. Doesn't meet WP:BIO. NawlinWiki 18:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, subject does not meet WP:BIO.--Isotope23 20:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It's true that Kwok is just an attorney, but plenty of other successful attorneys are important newsmakers and actors in their communities- and they are certainly on Wiki. Take John O'Quinn, Gloria Allred, Johnny Cochran, Ken Starr, Barry Scheck, Joe Jamail, and plenty of others. This article therefore does not deserve deletion. Deletion should be reserved for topics that are irreleant or are no longer changing. This bio on Kwok is neither of those — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.196.236.138 (talk • contribs)


 * Delete, and I disagree totally that his guy is anywhere near the level with Ken Starr or Cochran. hateless 22:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Resolute 22:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom -- Ritchy 22:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the people who want to delete this page don't know a lot about litigators. OK, this guy isn't Cochran or Allred, but he's won some major cases and is one of the best-known litigators in Texas. It's easy for ivory tower types to criticize, but just because someone doesn't show up on their limited radar doesn't mean their not notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kas818 (talk • contribs).
 * If you notice, we do have objective criteria which we use to define notable people for the purposes of this site at WP:BIO. Please offer us some proof of his notability rather than leaving things to your personal judgements and/or personal slights. hateless 23:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete The google test for "Robert S. Kwok" turns up 22 pages. If he hasn't made a bigger impression on the national media than THAT he is not widely recognized as a significant contributor to his field.  Thousands of tort lawyers win multimillion dollar judgements for their clients.  It doesn't make all of them notable.  I did also do a search for "Robert Kwok" which turned up more pages (594) but a cursory glance shows that there are SEVERAL other Robert Kowk out there.  The Robert Kwok that is a Physics Professor in Ireland gets more hits than the Houston Lawyer.  Ghits are not the end-all and be-all of verifiability, but the neither the number NOR the content of these ghits shows ANYTHING about this guy's notability. --Jayron32 03:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Whoa! Let's all just take a deep breath about this. It's good to have these debates. No, this guy is not Atticus Finch. But he may be important regionally or recently. That's part of what's cool about Wikipedia- that as much information as possible can be assembled and put into a larger picture. Having more information about something is always more valuable than denying yourself knowledge. So maybe let this guy be. The information may be useful to someone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 32Julie (talk • contribs) 13:04, October 16, 2006 (UTC)


 * comments please sign you posts on talk pages. Also, if he IS important regionally or recently, then there will exist a paper trail to document such.  Post references to the articles found in regional newspapers that establish his notability.  If such sources do not exist, then the article is unverifiable and thus needs to be deleted.  We are not denying ourselves knowledge.  We are denying ourselves unsubstantiated statements.  If anything notable about this guy more than he's a tort lawyer and does his job very well, PLEASE PROVIDE SOURCES to prove that he is. --Jayron32 21:08, 16 October 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.