This article was nominated for deletion on 2 November 2024. The result of the discussion was no consensus.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand
This article was nominated for deletion, since it is indeed a hodgepodge of promotional, and potentially self-promotional, verbiage. Yet, it was saved from its well deserved defenestration through the proffering of supposedly worthy sources and the perennial invocation of WP:EXIST, which is an essay that flies in the face of strong policies, such as the need for verifiability. It is indicative of the empty zeal to Keep some useless articles that, after the text was "rescued," no effort at all, e.g. adding a few "sources" (for appearance's sake at least), was undertaken to improve this text, if such a result if possible! Judging from the myriad of vainglorious texts masquerading as worthy articles, Wikipedia is slowly turning into exactly what it declares it's not: A collection of random information. -The Gnome (talk) 11:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the deletion nominator, I'm surprised the article survived the process. I believe the sources cited as supposed proof of notability during the deletion discussion fail WP:SIGCOV - we don't even have basic details like this lawyer's year of birth. However, as a "devil's advocate" exercise, I've just added a couple of those sources to the article. Muzilon (talk) 19:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
