Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arnold M. Weiner

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 no consensus. Like Black Kite I hate NCS closes for BLPs, but three relists already means my hands are tied here. Daniel (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold M. Weiner

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No apparent notability. Limited Google News/books results. Dustinmacdonald (talk) 04:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any wp:IS or wp:sigcov about subject, current article reads like a resume, and Google results generally show ads related to subject's firm. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 06:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a little passing coverage for his actions as a lawyer, but nothing rising to the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't know where you're looking, but I'm seeing plenty of coverage, from the 1970s to present: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and many more. Easily passes my standards for lawyers. Bearian (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That coverage barely meets your own list of lawyer notability requirements, with the only one it fits being "Trying a case with its own Wikipedia article." Several of the sources you linked are discussions of cases where Weiner was their defense lawyer, not the subject. Sitting on a nonprofit Board does not establish notability. Being published in the law review is not the same as being editor. Being mentioned in passing is not enough. None of those sources are detailed ~~primary~~ secondary sources about Weiner himself. --Dustinmacdonald (talk) 01:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Sourcing is generally ok. Article needs to be rewritten via WP:NPOV. Redoryxx (talk) 07:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A notable attorney based on the sources cited and those satisfies criterion for WP:GNG. Luciapop (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Most coverage is merely local reporting. BD2412 T 19:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist as this is a BLP and I hate t close those as No Consensus, which is where this one is.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 23:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.