Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter Mosley (US lawyer)

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. (non-admin closure) Pamzeis (talk) 11:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Mosley (US lawyer)

[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)

No substantial coverage, all the articles appear to be incidental and focus on clients or cases this person is involved in. Being the lawyer for a notable person does not infer notability. Shritwod (talk) 22:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as written. Some high-profile clients, but nothing that rises to the level of independent encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 22:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject is already clearly notable. If the subject was a street guy without professional notability, he wouldn't have been hired by the celebrity clients. Salbador7070 (talk) 9:16, 16 September 2020
- I would hazard that notability sufficient to represent celebrities is not the same thing as encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 04:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Found a source that gives WP:SIGCOV to the subject and I think that if a more advanced search was conducted more sources may be found. Northern Escapee (talk) 12:46, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:41, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A claim has been made that a source has been found, but what this is has not been disclosed, much less added to the article. BD2412 T 00:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes my usual standards for lawyers/jurists. Bearian (talk) 00:41, 7 October 2020 (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.