Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph C. Shenker

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. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph C. Shenker

[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)

This article only concerns a corporate lawyer and is entirely about this person's work for a law firm, Sullivan & Cromwell. When checking the sources there are few independent WP:BASIC sources, and the subject overall fails that criteria, lacking significant and independent coverage. It also doesn't help that the article is written in a promotional tone. It was created in July by a WP:SPA.

. There is an independent Wall Street Journal Article, but little other than that in terms of independent sources. A Business Insider article is short, minor, with only superficial coverage, and the NYT source just has brief mentions as well. GuardianH (talk) 17:31, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with analysis above, a senior partner at a law firm and now into management with the firm, nothing very notable that I can see. WSJ is the best source, rest are name drops as explained. I don't find anything else. Oaktree b (talk) 22:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an interview [1] by a Forbes contributor, and it's about the best that I could find. A !redirect to the law firm would be ok too. Oaktree b (talk) 22:32, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Law, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Same conclusion as GuardianH; the The WSJ, NYT, and Business Insider would be very useful to prove notability, if only the coverage was significant ecough. But the NYT is a passing mention, WSJ has two paragraphs on him, Business Insider also only mentions him briefly. Overall, still does not meet WP:SIGCOV criteria to establish notability. Prof.PMarini (talk) 01:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Most coverage revolves around their role at Sullivan & Cromwell, with no substantial independent attention. Looks more of WP:PROMO -- Robertjamal12 ~🔔 18:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As a lawyer, he hasn’t done much. Yes, he’s done his job as a lawyer and manager, and is probably a very good lawyer, but that’s not noteworthy in my mind. Yes, he appears to be a mensch, but that’s not notability. I’ve identified 21 factors that could make him a notable attorney and arguably he meets one of those. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 03:35, 29 August 2024 (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.