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. JForget 00:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Ammons[edit]

Robert Ammons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Just another plaintiff lawyer with some victories to his name; we don't need another thousand articles on everybody on the Lawdragon lists!!!! Orange Mike | Talk 16:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment these seem to be the major ranking lists within the profession, and we normally do accept the profession;s standards. DGG ( talk ) 20:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • response - but does appearing on one website's list of a thousand practicioners really attest to meeting the standards of the profession? --Orange Mike | Talk 23:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Just another lawyer. -R. fiend (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Lawyer rankings are quite unreliable - essentially everyone just votes each other onto them for a communal PR boost - and being in the "top 500" is hardly a claim to notability. All that aside, I am not seeing significant coverage of the subject, as opposed to the cases in which he has been involved, in reliable sources. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Mkativerata (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- Mkativerata (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• comment there are over 500,000 attorneys in the US [1]. It is perfectly reasonable that atthe very least the top one tenth of one percent of them would be notable--I'd say an presum,ption for the top 1% would be realistic. . WP is NOT PAPER, & we can include all who qualify for the standard lists of notable lawyers. DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something is wrong with the article here (or was until I fixed it). He does not appear on the Top 500 overall, merely on the top 500 plaintiff lawyer list. Plaintiff lawyers are a narrow category of specialists. There certainly aren't 500,000 plaintiff lawyers. This is why I'm uncomfortable with subjective opinions of notability: not only are they subjective, they can be based on incorrect or unreliable information or assumptions. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:16, 4 April 2010 (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.