Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eli Northrup

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 no consensus. KTC (talk) 12:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eli Northrup[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and for too promotional, which raises some potential WP:COI concerns (e.g. "As a varsity athlete at Cornell, Northrup was able to maintain a perfect 4.0 GPA during the Fall 2005 semester", "became well known as a rapper", "that became a YouTube sensation", "it became a big story in the legal community") Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep the article clearly meets GNG for a figure in the legal/music community. mentions of Northrup on Above the Law at Above the Law (blog); America Lawyer Media article about him at ALM (company); ABA journal article at American Bar Association Journal; washington post article on RG3 and him; Article on music career; Another article on music career. USA Today on his music career at USA Today; Article from NYU law school; NYU Law Magazine spotlight on Northrup. It amuses me, when rather than make minor edits to an article, someone proposes it for deletion. I have corrected the weasel words that you pointed out. --JumpLike23 (talk) 23:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Above The Law and Careerist are blogs and do not qualify as WP:RS. The ABA link is just a re-posting of the material from Above The Law and Careerist. The Washington Post story does nothing to establish notability -- only that he is a big fan of RGIII. The Cornell University website and alumni website do not exactly qualify as independent, reliable media sources. Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note, however, that these are not personal blogs and thus they are reliable sources because these are professional journalists--per the guideline. The Cornell stories actually do establiish notability and are further supported by USA today and broadway world. The article is well-written and sourced. Not mention he clerked for the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit cf. List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States, and that he was a Prettyman fellow --JumpLike23 (talk) 23:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is no wonder to me why experts become frustrated with wikipedia, having written the majority of content on public defenders for wikipedia. Northrup is a notable defender. The nominating user seems to have very little experience in law-related articles, completely brushing aside the ABA journal, the careerist and above the law. See also the discussion on the talk page regarding a revert by the nominating editor. --JumpLike23 (talk) 00:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 01:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 01:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 01:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft and userfy if needed for now then as Books, News, browser and Highbeam all seemed to have found links but nothing to suggest outstandingly better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 04:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to discuss changes to the article, I would appreciate that. I don't think it needs to become a draft. Of course, those engines reveal sources because he is clearly notable.--JumpLike23 (talk) 04:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - meets some (but not enough) of the factors of my standards for lawyers. His article may be WP:TOOSOON. Bearian (talk) 13:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:46, 2 November 2015 (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.