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. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 07:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Attorney bio, asserts notability, but I don't think he meets WP:BIO. NawlinWiki 14:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - borderline for notability per WP:BIO; most of the references are to his firm's website (hence not independent) but some seem to be from independent sites. However, more sources are needed to firmly establish notability. WaltonVivat Regina! 15:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Involvement in major cases shows sufficient N.DGG 02:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He was apparently part of some major cases. Abeg92contribs 21:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mere involvement in big cases does not show notability for a lawyer. No suggestion that the cases are of any significance as breaking new ground or establishing new legal principle.Paul M Stanley 20:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article seems like it's only purpose is self-promotion.99DBSIMLR 15:55, 9 April 2007 (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.