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 keep. The article needs improvement, but this is a matter for the usual writing process. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald I. Meshbesher

[edit]

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

The article about this attorney does not, and probably will not, reach the substantial level of notability to warrant an encyclopedia article. The notability, even within the Twin Cities, isn't even clear --simply being the named partner of a small (less than 40 attorney) law firm isn't substantial enough. While I realize trial attorneys rarely have larger law firms, I also do not see the same level of notability of trial attorneys like Gerry Spence or Joe Jamail. As such, I recommend deletion. Bobak (talk) 17:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~Keep. Appears to be notable, and his career goes back ages. Mention in Coen film (great name!) helps a bit. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Keep. I'm satisfied he satisfies the notability requirement, whether or not he is a "legend."--JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Ron Meshbesher is a legend in the Midwest. That's exactly why the Coen brothers are using his name in their film. He represented some of the most well known cases in Midwest including the Piper Kidnapping, Ming Sen Shiue case, the Elisabeth Congdon murder trial...http://www.lawandpolitics.com/minnesota/default.asp?section=ARTICLES&module=ITEM&id=302 --Lhc67 —Preceding undated comment added 20:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Reply to above comment. Please note that there may be a conflict of interest WP:COI because you are participating in a deletion discussion of an article that you created. See [1]. Also, it does not mean that by writting "Strong Keep", your article will not be deleted, especially if you are the creator. For an article to be deleted, Wikipedia users will give their opinion on whether it will be deleted or keept. Everyone's opinion counts. Therefore, if you want to comment or to justify why this article should not be deleted, I suggest you to write "Comment" instead of "Strong Keep". Thanks! Jolenine (Talk - Contribs) 21:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC) Sometimes I lose my head and don't know what am I writting ;)... Jolenine (Talk - Contribs) 02:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Starting an article does not mean you have a COI in an AfD like this.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I deprodded it a couple days ago. There are plenty of gnews hits on him, some with significant coverage. "Ron Meshbesher" gives better search results than his full name. Also, article creation does not count as conflict of interest, and the norm is to write "Keep" or "Delete" if that is one's intention in AfD debates.John Z (talk) 21:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless those who wish to keep are willing to expend the effort to keep a single-purpose account, whose only undeleted contributions (save two) are related to the page's subject, from continuing to treat this page as an unencylopedic hagiography. Kablammo (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2009 (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.