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. Sandstein 10:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Stephen Benedetto

Stephen Benedetto (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Non notable and promotional, based almost entirely on press releases DGG ( talk ) 06:04, 19 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• delete' lacks sufficient coverage in RS to meet notability requirements. -- Dlohcierekim ( talk) 23:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Insufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources. What exists is passing coverage related to cases, not coverage about the article topic himself. Nwlaw63 ( talk) 15:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete nothing even getting close to showing notability. Run-of-the mill lawyer, and the article has lots of POV pushing issues. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:11, 2 January 2018 (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.