Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lynn Wood

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 keep. I won't move the article as there is no clear consensus on what the title should be, but anyone can do the move. Davewild (talk) 09:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Wood

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

Unreferenced BLP - no good notability claim - fails WP:BIO WP:GNG Ajbpearce (talk) 00:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to L. Lin Wood, and then improve through normal editing. A search of Google News archives with the proper name yields a flood of in depth references from reliable sources calling him "high-profile", a "top libel lawyer", a "big time attorney", "high-powered", "renowned", a "powerhouse" and so on. We can be sure that the article isn't promotional because a guy like L. Lin Wood couldn't possibly have arranged for the junk that is this article in its current state. Cullen328 (talk) 01:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 05:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment could you either link here or add these sources to the article? as I couldn't find anything that could be called a reliable source under either the old name or your proposed rename? Thanks Ajbpearce (talk) 23:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response I've added a section on coverage in newspapers and books that consists of quotes in two papers and two books. I don't have time to do a complete rewrite as we are celebrating my wife's birthday, but this should be more than adequate to establish notability and justify a renaming. Cullen328 (talk) 03:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Cullen328 has provided anchoring references. L. Lin Wood is the name form used at the practice where he's a partner, Bryan Cave affiliates, http://www.bryancave.com/linwood/ but "Lin Wood" occurs frequently, as at http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/08/29/richard.jewell/index.html#cnnSTCText. So you could pick either and redirect from the other. Opbeith (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am still not satisfied that these added references really meet the criterion of significant coverage in reliable sources. I am grateful for the effort to find them, but these references are really discussing the specific legal cases that attracted media attention and which he has been involved, and discuss Mr Wood incidentally, rather than as subject of these articles (with the possible exception of the Atlanta Buisness Chronicle article, but even here it simply lists his legal CV in the context of a specific case). However, the reailty is that nearly all lawyers at significant firms will represent major clients in their careers and libel lawyers are likley to be involved in cases that attract media attention. I don't think that this coverage is sufficient to really demonstrate that Mr Wood is notable himself outside of the particular cases that have attracted attention. Ajbpearce (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting hairs, surely? How do you separate out coverage of the case from coverage of the significant outcome achieved by the advocate? Opbeith (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2011 (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.