Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter J. Riebling

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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peter J. Riebling[edit]

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

This is a non-notable attorney who has been involved in one incident noted by a couple of press sources but hasn't had anything substantial or sustained written about them in reliable sources as required for our notability standard. Fails WP:BIO. Incidentally the article was probably created for hire by an editor who is now blocked for sockpuppetry. Bri (talk) 16:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bri (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not sure "vanity page" is one of our terms but it surer fits. Subject is not notable.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 17:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Jim: It's often called "vanity bio" in XfD discussions. That sort of implies "innocent" conflict of interest though, rather than paid self-promotion/PR which appears likely in this case, and is definitely not innocent. - Bri (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The reliable, secondary and independent sources included do not talk in depth about the attorney only about an incident. Not notable. --Rogerx2 (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 174.78.149.105 (talk) 19:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC) original deletion suggestion appears politically motivated, given the available news that features Riebling talking Trump trademarks.[reply]
- Wow, WP:THEYDONTLIKEIT, a textbook argument to avoid in deletion debates. - Bri (talk) 19:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, and the sources discuss the incident, not him, which means he cannot even pass WP:BLP1E. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 14:26, 26 April 2017 (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.