Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Reidenbach

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. No reason to drag this out. Borderline G11. Randykitty (talk) 04:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Reidenbach[edit]

[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)

actually pretty sure this is an A7, but an admin disagreed. Radically fails WP:GNG, pretty much a vanity piece, and it seems a UPE vanity piece at that John from Idegon (talk) 16:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:22, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:22, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:22, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:MILL. He fails my standards for notable lawyers; in fact, from what's in the article, I don't see that he's done even a single act that enables him to be notable. Lawyers are supposed to get quick verdicts; I once got a (fairly small, bench) verdict immediately. in less than six minutes. More broadly, the sources are less than stellar (American Executive Centers? or Business Review- nice, but I've been in them twice - and his college alumni newsletter). When he gets elected chair of Bar Association board, or chairs the Villanova alumni association, or serves on a state commission, then we can reconsider. Until then, this is spam, posted in violation of our charter as a not for profit and our internal rules. Bearian (talk) 23:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sorely fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. This attempt at a Wiki article reeks of a public relations puff piece. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 23:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a collection of trivia and truly minor distinctions, nothing even close to notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity piece for a non-notable lawyer and former eleven-year-old baseball wannabe. TJRC (talk) 04:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possibly not A7 but G11; a lot of sub-trivia information. A lawyer with no significant coverage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing particularly notable about this lawyer. Looks like a promotional piece. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:25, 18 August 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.