Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melvin Wright

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. T. Canens (talk) 22:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Melvin Wright

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

Seems not notable (after having consulted the notability guidelines) Bjornte (talk) 18:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 19:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 19:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the creator of this article, I have revised the page in a way that I believe addresses concerns about notability, specifically discussion of the active role Wright has played in high-profile litigation at the national level and in Florida. Adamr.p1s (talk) 16:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this article is properly cited and adds value to Wikipedia, I don't think there are any significant notability issues that deem this deletion-worthy Preceding comment was added by User:66.185.109.71. — 66.185.109.71 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete - promo advert, just another lawyer trying to WP:SOAPBOX his positions and drumming up clients, the "awards" are all in-trade recognitions, handed out by the thousands, sources in the article are connected to the subject, don't mention the subject (#1), directory listings, press releases and a few trivial mentions. Kraxler (talk) 17:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is pretty much a resume. Subject is no more notable than anyone else at his firm, or any other firm in America. JJMC89 said it quite well about the in-house awards, and I don't see mainstream coverage on the actual subject here. He's mentioned in passing, but that's not coverage of him. It's about the event. --Cagepanes (talk) 03:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent RS establish notability.Pincrete (talk) 14:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that Wright was named co-chair of the steering committee that oversaw the multidistrict litigation relating to the nationally publicized meningitis outbreak caused by the NECC is, in itself, notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.42.106.110 (talk) 16:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC) — Special:Contributions/72.42.106.110) 72.42.106.110 has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Notability is established by widespread coverage in independent RSs. Pincrete (talk) 14:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wright's role on the unsecured creditors' committee was a major impetus behind the article. He might not have been the committee spokesman, but he was one of fewer than 10 attorneys on the committee to vote on multi-million dollar settlements in the federal bankruptcy court, which I think qualifies him as making a significant contribution in the legal field. Adamr.p1s (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're mistaken. To sit on a committee which handles a few million dollars is not defined as confering notability to anybody, under Wikipedia guidelines. He rather made a significant contribution of other people's money to some people's purses, not some contribution to the legal field. Kraxler (talk) 18:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But the contribution is a legal one because the settlement compensates the hundreds of injured people filing suit against NECC, resolving the substantial litigation against the company. The settlement is also part of NECC's federal bankruptcy proceedings. These are legal events in the story of the meningitis outbreak. Adamr.p1s (talk) 19:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's routine, lawsuits like that are brought, decided, and settled every day. Kraxler (talk) 15:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The main author has made contributions mainly on this article and one about the subject's employer: Colling Gilbert Wright & Carter. I assume that page is candidate for removal too; it's a new, non notable (in my opinion) firm. To me, this type of content belongs on LinkedIn, not Wikipedia (At least in Norway, I have had entries deleted for companies that are 30+ years old and have made much more substantial contributions than what is displayed here, and also fierce discussions about removing entries about people that have frequently been covered in Norwegian national news). Finally, these articles about Wright and his employer seem to have many siblings in the "Florida law" field. Is there a bad habit of using Wikipedia as a kind of LinkedIn in Florida? Bjornte (talk) 12:36, 18 August 2015 (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.