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. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC) reply

John Trevena (lawyer)

John Trevena (lawyer) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Biography of an attorney that does not meet WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and also fails WP:BLP1E, WP:BLPCRIME and WP:NOTPROMO. This attorney has had some high-profile cases, but coverage of those cases is not in-depth coverage of the attorney. The attorney also had a domestic violence charge, which was dropped, and followed by a lawsuit. That coverage, however, is all local, and doesn't confer notability per BLP1E and BLPCRIME. Trevena, a private attorney, is not a "public figure", despite having some cases that received media attention. Levivich  ^{dubious – discuss} 16:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Levivich  ^{dubious – discuss} 16:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Levivich  ^{dubious – discuss} 16:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Levivich  ^{dubious – discuss} 16:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Levivich  ^{dubious – discuss} 16:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep This is a WP:POINTy nomination. Regarding the article: The subject passes WP:SIGCOV: the article has 21 reliable sources which include both regional and national news organizations. There is also international coverage which is not yet in the article: ( BBC) ( the Irish Times). News organizations regularly refer to the subject (John Trevena) as a High Profile Attorney. If the AfD participants feel that the subject fails WP:BLP1E, WP:BLPCRIME for his domestic abuse charges which were later dropped, the section can be removed WP:NOTCLEANUP. The attorney will be no less notable without the section. Contrary to the opinion of the nominator the subject is a public figure. High profile lawyers are notable for high profile cases and this lawyer has had many. Lightburst ( talk) 20:38, 15 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• KEEP He doesn't just get mentioned and quoted as being the lawyer in notable cases. They talk about things dealing with him personally. [1] [2] That and being a notable part of cases deemed notable enough already to have their own Wikipedia articles, means he is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Dream Focus 23:30, 15 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep: so-called international coverage cited by Lightburst is just a couple of passing mentions and short quotes. WP:ROUTINE applies. However, some of the coverage is more substantiative and I think he just skates by GNG. b uidh e 10:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep MeetS WP:GNG. 10:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC) 7&6=thirteen ( ☎)
• Keep - Per the sources, it does appear that he has dealt with a significant number of publicized cases, some of which received worldwide attention, followed by an equally publicized arrest. I'm sure any problems can be dealt with through constructive editing rather than deletion. Patiodweller ( talk) 15:04, 17 March 2020 (UTC)​ reply
• Keep The combination of his involvement in high profile/notable cases with the existing coverage meets GNG. Mallardsfan19 ( talk) 15:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Lightburst. this notable lawyer took cases that have national exposure and got a significant amount of coverage himself as a result. I suppose his status as a well-known public figure is likely the reason why his domestic violence case received so much coverage. Naomi.piquette ( talk) 15:54, 17 March 2020 (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.