Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W. Mark Lanier (2nd nomination)

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 speedy keep, bad faith nomination. MER-C 12:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

W. Mark Lanier

[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 in passing WP:GNG. Akronowner (talk) 18:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Akronowner (talk) 18:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reasons cited at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W. Mark Lanier. WP:Notability is not evanescent. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The New York Times is asserting notability in an article titled "Vioxx Verdict Raises Profile of Texas Lawyer". If the NYT devotes an entire article to his "raised profile" it is significant coverage, per GNG. -- GreenC 22:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references in the article now prove he passes the general notability guidelines. This includes the New York Times article mentioned, which also is the first thing that appears if you click the reference search link at the top of the AFD. Dream Focus 03:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NYT ref. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 06:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per discussion . TwinTurbo (talk) 01:09, 23 January 2021 (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.