Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howard Jacobs

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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC) [reply ]

Howard Jacobs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats )

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

For a BLP this does not seem to suitably demonstrate notability. One ref is a blog, and the other is about a relationship that is not clearly notable. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC) [reply ]

• Delete non-notable lawyer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC) [reply ]

Sure, the page needs some better footnotes, but this attorney is representing some huge athletes in some rather big-time cases in terms of sports eligibility. Folks need to be able to locate specialists and cutting this page give far too much power to the powerful. It seems like a prudent and notable page for Wikipedia and extra references, requested, have been called for directly. Rauterkus (talk) 21:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC) [reply ]

comment I'm not sure what this is in reference to but Wikipedia isn't a business directory so I'm not sure how not deleting this so people can "find a specialist" is a relevant reason to contest deletion? Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ̄\_(ツ)_/ ̄

• Keep Most of the sources linked in the article are about the athletes he represented rather than Jones himself, but the article subject does pass WP:GNG on coverage in WP:RS alone. USA Today profiled him back in 2006[1] and The Times of San Diego also profiled him last February [2]. Multiple, sustained coverage about he article subject in independent sources establishes notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep: Per Eggishorn above. GauchoDude (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep I would very rarely say to keep an article of this general nature about an attorney that does not show objective criteria of notability , and is based only on a listing of cases, but I think this is an exception--I think it could be the basis for a viable article. DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 6 January 2017 (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.