Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dick Semerdjian

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. Sandstein 09:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Semerdjian[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) This article was proposed for deletion, and a sockpuppet of Orangemoody provided some sub-par sources and removed the PROD tag. Let's please have a proper deletion review. Slashme (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non significant lawyer. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 23:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Partner in a well-known law firm, and past chair of one of the largest sections of the ABA. Passes my standards for lawyers. Bearian (talk) 01:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have specific policies for lawyers? I ask because based on GNG this person does not fair well. None of the references are both third-party and more than a mention; many are solely local. Unless there is a policy that puts "major firm" and "chair of section" forward, I have to say delete. LaMona (talk) 01:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I found Wikipedia:Notability_(law)#Lawyers, and it's beyond vague. I also looked at Bearean's list of lawyerly notability although I have no idea where that stands. The chasm between the two is incredibly wide. I'll stick with my !vote for the time being. LaMona (talk) 21:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and WP:TNT as my searches found results at News and Books but this may need a better start. SwisterTwister talk 22:44, 13 September 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.