Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Coleman (legal scholar)

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. ✗plicit 00:07, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Coleman (legal scholar)

[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)

Poorly sourced BLP. No media coverage of significance (mostly passing mentions), lacking RS. Non-notable person, no notability-defining aspects. --PlanespotterA320 (talk) 00:02, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:15, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:15, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:17, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delete. As it happens, I am familiar with the article subject, and they have indeed represented clients in some notable cases, but doing so does not by itself make a lawyer notable. BD2412 T 02:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - same, I’m finding difficult to find notability reasons - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:48, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - for the reasons stated above by BD2412 Inf-in MD (talk) 16:39, 27 November 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.