Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James L. Walker, Jr.

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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. slakr^\ talk / 06:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James L. Walker, Jr.

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

I am unconvinced that this guy's involvement in one high profile case makes him notable Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails to demonstrate notability. reddogsix (talk) 14:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Elijah Adefope He has been involved in more than one high profile case; here is a recent case which he is involved in that is being covered in the media: http://www.joy105.com/a-major-lawsuit-just-hit-between-preachers-of-la-executive-producer-and-central-south-distribution/
Delete. No real assertion of notability beyond 1 case, sources are web ephemera, etc. Agricola44 (talk) 15:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I have shown more than one case; there are additional cases online; including: http://www.law360.com/articles/405013/producers-settle-actor-s-suit-over-bristol-palin-reality-show

Also Attorney James L. Walker, Jr. was honored by Lawyers USA: a legal publication http://www.hiphoppress.com/2006/09/lawyers_usa_hon

Lawyers USA has ceased publication, like many other print magazines, due to the advent of online magazines and online publications. (See: http://lawyersusaonline.com/) It is purely your opinion to consider this ephemera. I have given evidence of three notable cases, a book that has gained coverage, and there have also been hundreds of notable clients who have been represented by Attorney Walker. There are many individuals whose notability is less than his; yet, they have Wikipedia pages. The evidence for Mr. Walker stands under the Wikipedia guidelines for notability. If not, how does Johnnie Cochran have a Wikipedia page when his "notability" comes from one case alone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elijah Adefope (talk • contribs) 19:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Elijah Adefope (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment. Let me address those two points. Regarding sources, most of them are not reliable sources that are independent of the subject. For example, the one you just listed above citing an honor by "Lawyers USA" is from a hip-hop fan magazine that solicits user-material and was posted by an author only known as "phh" – this is not an acceptable source. Regarding why Johnnie Cochran merits a page, the man has oodles of text written specifically about him in high-profile secondary sources like The Washington Post. In other words, he has been heavily noted. Therein lies the difference. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 20:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

1) James Walker has been covered in sources including Huffington Post and CNN (high profile secondary sources) 2) The only reason that particular source was given here is because the original source that covered it (Lawyers USA; a legal publication) is no longer in circulation. 3) Johnnie Cochran's notability arises from one case. The reason why so many sources have covered him is because of that one case. His name is synonymous with the O.J. Simpson Trial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elijah Adefope (talk • contribs) 20:44, 12 March 2014 (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.