Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert M Heller

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. Cirt (talk) 01:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert M Heller

Does not, so far as I can discern, meet

WP:BIO criteria. Nicely sourced for the most part, I concede that freely, but I can't quite discern if any of the facts stated actually prove notability. Those more knowledgeable in this field are free and encouraged to disagree, of course! Vianello (talk) 00:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I have added two more links from eonline and abc news showing notability. Siamsens —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

The ABC news link doesn't work, but the E-Online link does work. Vianello, you're right this page is nicely sourced but it smacks of self-promotion to me. Liberal Classic (talk) 00:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed there is some duplication from http://www.rhellerlaw.com/attorney_profile.html in the wikipedia entry. Liberal Classic (talk) 02:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The author of the article's user page User:Siamsens says: "Rex Flay Freiberger, living in Los Angeles, CA, resident alien". The law firm in question has a Los Angeles office. What is Mr. Freiberger's relationship with Robert Heller? Is there is potential conflict of interest? Liberal Classic (talk) 02:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete This article violates

WP:COI. In conclusion, this entry is self-promotional, not encyclopedic. Liberal Classic (talk) 03:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Note — I have removed from the article the copyrighted content as stated in the
MuZemike (talk) 06:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Insufficient notability per guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3 Notes

1. The abc link has been changed to the Intl Herald Tribune, this should meet notability requirements of two premium journalist pieces quoting Mr. Heller.
2. Heller's legal cases are high profile in the LA area, i wrote objectively about him and cited properly as mentioned by admin on the first note. My point being, the very fact that i live in LA reveals that I understand the subject.
3. If I were to write about my least favorite pokemon character would you question whether I watch the show or not? What are my intentions? This is very good question to ask, as you must question if the entry is to be unbiased. But wikipedia entries should only be written by those who are knowledgeable on the subject matter, written in a tonality of objectivity, which i did.

My intention is to get a correct, healthily cited notability required entry approved. Instruct to me why and the how if there is fault with room for improvement. If not please approve.Rex Freiberger (talk) 07:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr. Freiberger, if you read

WP:BIO you will see the standard for notability is a little more strict that being quoted in the paper. One of the ways notability is established is when 3rd party sources write something substantial about a person. In this case, the depth of the coverage is not substantial. In fact, it could be argued the article is about actress Teri Hatcher, not Mr. Heller. Liberal Classic (talk) 17:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete. Fail to establish notability per
WP:BIO. --Crusio (talk) 12:09, 4 January 2009 (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.