Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Morgan (lawyer) (2nd nomination)

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. Promotional content can be fixed through editing. ansh 666 02:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Morgan (lawyer)

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

An immense amount of promotional material added by a paid editor has been removed, along with several promotional supporting articles, and a large number of promotional links from attorneys in his firm, but I do not think there is really any underlying notability. There's evidence he supported the failed Florida marihuana amendment, but not that he was the central figure--the claims are all "one of the..." . The news reports are relatively minor. DGG ( talk ) 22:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He really is a well-known lawyer [1]. Easily meets WP:BASIC and WP:GNG having been covered in numerous sources in a non-trivial fashion.[2][3][4][5][6]. C'mon, he's even a headliner in The Marijuana Times [7]!- MrX 23:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and Close per MrX. MB298 (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An article saying someone is not going to run for governor is not exactly substantial coverage. BVut an equally important reason for deletion is the promotional campaign on WP --see the article history. DGG ( talk ) 00:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: That material has been removed. Past information is not a justification for deletion. MB298 (talk) 02:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And regarding the governor coverage, a non-notable person would not receive the sheer amount of coverage Morgan got for simply announcing he would not run. MB298 (talk) 02:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or Move- This is the guy who has like 500 commercials on tv everyday and then's there another lawyer who runs commercials saying that he and his law firm aren't legit. Well, whether you think is law firm is good or not, it seems to be a major operation. The firm claims to have over 2000 employees and 370 lawyers. I've just established notability for his firm. His notability would be founding that firm, but since notability is not inherited, that may be a weak argument. His political activity only adds slightly to his claim of notability. It might make more sense to move this to Morgan & Morgan and then change the focus of the article to his law firm (but retain information about him).--Rusf10 (talk) 04:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is not the level of reliable source coverage of Morgan as a person that justifies having an article on him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If he is not notable, as you assert, then why did Politico ([8], [9], [10], [11], [12]), The New York Times ([13]), The Chicago Tribune ([14], [15]), and many more cover a potential candidacy for governor (he didn't even enter the race!)? MB298 (talk) 02:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MrX and MB298. Sources indicate notability, especially since they covered someone who did not run, so it cannot be dismissed as routine coverage of announced political candidates. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable for marijuana campaigning and as large political donor ([16], [17], [18]). Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 23:13, 16 January 2018 (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.