Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Zehl

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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Zehl[edit]

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

Lack of significant coverage by reliable independent secondary sources, per WP:BIO. A whole bunch of junk sources or trivial coverage. The article was recently CSDed (I was the nominator) and recently resurrected by an SPA. Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is what every other lawyer would have on their page. Not notable above and beyond typical lawyer non-notability. VViking_TalkEdits 02:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - litigating some of the US's most successful law suits makes you notable, and atypical of the normal lawyer. No, not every single lawyer wins multi-million dollar cases against some of the most recognizable American brands. Fundraising maniac wonder (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC) — Fundraising maniac wonder (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Dear Fundraising maniac wonder: you have made exactly one WP edit, and it is the the !vote above. With more experience on WP, your view might be better received. It's actually more fun doing edits than arguing over deletions, so I encourage you to do that. Also, remember to sign your posts! The instructions are right the on the screen under the edit box, and you just have to click. LaMona (talk) 18:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The entire article came in whole-cloth from a single SPA author Special:Contributions/Ebarr_94. The remaining few edits were routine bots and cleanup. It is defended by a no-edit account. It is, however, only 7 days old at this point. This is an unusual article history - born complete, no additional edits, SPA account. Unless someone with cred comes along to defend it, I'm going to go with delete. LaMona (talk) 19:09, 8 November 2014 (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.