Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jorge Rivera (lawyer)

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. So Why 12:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Rivera (lawyer)

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

This article should be deleted because it's just advertising (i.e. Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content).

There are no working links on the article other than to a general florida bar page that every lawyer has. This guy is not newsworthy or notable and he certainly does not deserve his own wikipedia page. Wikipedia should be for information not self-promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edmonddantes77 (talk • contribs) 15:07, March 1, 2017 (UTC)

Comment This discussion page was created by a new account with no other edits, without the proper template, and was never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I offer no other opinion on the nomination itself at this time. 04:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 04:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 04:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 04:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete No reliable sources at all. The first source is just a listing that shows his firm exists. Clealry comes no where close to passing the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found a mere mention in a bbc article. Does not meet WP:BIO. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject lacks notability. Bmbaker88 (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my standards for lawyers. Bearian (talk) 03:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:26, 8 May 2017 (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.