Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William A. Barton

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

William A. Barton[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)

Fails WP:GNG. Despite his success as a lawyer and role in Doe v. Holy See, very little coverage of this person exists. KidAd (💬💬) 21:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the case may be notable, but that does not make Barton notable as a person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:00, 3 August 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.