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. czar 06:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Stone (lawyer)[edit]

Charlie Stone (lawyer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

WP:BLP of a lawyer and television producer, not reliably sourced as passing our notability criteria for lawyers or television producers. The notability claim here is essentially that he's had jobs, which is not an automatic inclusion freebie in and of itself, and the referencing consists of one very brief blurb in a local film industry WP:BLOG and the self-published primary source website of a television show he was involved with, neither of which are notability-building sources. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be the subject of a lot more WP:GNG-worthy coverage about him and his work than this. Bearcat (talk) 03:55, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:55, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:55, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:55, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the well reasoned arguement of the nominator. This level of sourcing is not even remotely close to showing that someone is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Fails WP:NBIO: no significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Paul W (talk) 10:49, 22 February 2022 (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.