Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Trevena (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 delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Trevena (lawyer)[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)

Lawyer does not meet WP:NBIO- coverage is largely WP:PASSING mentions in the context of the individual court cases. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:24, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:50, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:50, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:50, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Run of the mill lawyer. fails WP:ANYBIO. scope_creep^Talk 11:36, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not much on him apart from articles about him being involved in a battery case. Non-notable lawyer. Keriwands (talk) 15:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Blocked sock. --Blablubbs (talk) 17:04, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, scope creep, and my arguments in the first nom: there is a lack of independent non-local, non-trivial coverage of him as a person; the SIGCOV is of his clients and their cases. The topic doesn't meet ANYBIO. Levivich 16:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Northamerica1000's closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Trevena (lawyer) (the first nomination). — Jeff G. ツ 08:20, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Which sources do you think prove that WP:ANYBIO is met? MrsSnoozyTurtle 04:12, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:56, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although there is some coverage, its mostly salacious local coverage about domestic issues. Fails ANYBIO. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons cited at last deletion discussion. Notability is not evanescent. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:00, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's give this one more go. Further discussion of whether the sources mentioned are enough would be helpful for consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 19:47, 11 December 2021 (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.