Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry E. Coben

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Larry E. Coben[edit]

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

Promotional article for at best a borderline notable lawyer. Contain the usual contents for an advertisement: A list of cases where he obtained large sums of money, a photo of him counseling a client, suitably blurred to preserve anonymity, minor awards, placement in lists of "top lawyers.", various puffery at every opportunity. DGG ( talk ) 10:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only hint of notability is he wrote some books, but there's no indication that those books themselves have been deemed to be important enough, even taken as an aggregate, to justify notability of the author. Even if so, it just serves as a WP:COATRACK to have the article be a Wikipedia-sponsored ad for the lawyer. TJRC (talk) 21:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. It's possible that with judicious digging through independent sources, a case could be made for Coben as a notable lawyer for a history of big personal injury wins [1] and his involvement in the NFL concussions lawsuits, e.g. [2][3][4] The current article doesn't make that case, however, and as DGG observes it is overwhelmed by advertising content. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:27, 16 April 2014 (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.