Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Zashin

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 redirect to Monasky v. Taglieri. Individual notability is questionable, but his name is a reasonable search term related to the case, and there is shared material in the history of the two articles. RL0919 (talk) 11:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Zashin

[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)

I believe this would be the biography's third deletion. Non-notable lawyer. No SIGCOV. All mentions appear to be in passing due to a recent Supreme Court Case his law firm is involved with. Not a single quality source exclusively discussing his work, etc. PK650 (talk) 04:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 04:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 04:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rework and move suitable material into a new article on the Supreme Court case, which is notable. Leave this as a redirect to the court case if Zashin is worth mentioning in that article, else delete. b uidhe 13:34, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reworking based on the suggestions made by b uidhe Misisipimike (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested - he's real lawyer, so he passes WP:V, but I have two concerns: WP:BLP1E and WP:SPA. He's entirely famous for only one case, and this appears to be made by an account whose only purpose for the past three months was to make this article about an obscure lawyer. It's been created and deleted twice before, and is still barely more than a cut-and-paste of a resume. Bearian (talk) 22:59, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely reads like a promotional page. 92% of edits by single person. Don't think the case is of national impact or implications. PenulisHantu (talk) 00:03, 17 January 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.