Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Rubin (attorney)

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. JGHowes ^talk 00:14, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Rubin (attorney)

[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)

article has been tagged with "may not meet notability guideline" since 2012. So let's have the discussion - what makes him notable enough for a Wikipedia article? Quakewoody (talk) 15:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Quakewoody (talk) 15:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. lullabying (talk) 17:18, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. WP:BEFORE gave me obits in LA Times (in-depth, major news outlet of global-level city), a San Francisco Chronicle reprint of LA Times obit (though with some info cut) and same state), and Sun Sentinel (shorter, but quite far from where the person was prominent in), but that's about it. ミラ P 18:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - easily passes my standards for notable lawyers: lauded in a reliable source as a "having a reputation" in his field, trustee of major charities, "service on a major bar association committee or section", etc. I found this list that mentions his bar presidency. Bearian (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, feminist (talk) 02:07, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep a bit more work is needed it references--Dreerwin (talk) 03:42, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comments are saying keep, but the only reliable source mentioned is a single obit (reprinted twice). Resisting to see if any more sources can be found.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 12:10, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Obituaries do count as RS when they are journalist written and unpaid for, which is the case here. The substantial obit in the Los Angeles Times is compelling, and the fact that other newspapers chose to print the obit or write their own on a national scale is further evidence that this is a notable person. This is enough coverage to just barely meet WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 19:58, 31 October 2019 (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.