Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jovan Blacknell

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. Consensus is "delete" by strength of arguments. Although it has been proven his name is mentioned as he has worked on high-profile cases, in no instance was in-depth coverage of the topic presented. There needs to be in-depth coverage, either biographical or in-depth discussion *directly* about his work in order to demonstrate notability. This individual may yet become notable, but it appears they are not at this point. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:08, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jovan Blacknell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Appears to be a competent and accomplished lawyer, though this Wikipedia article fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Except for a paragraph in this source, there is trivial coverage in reliable sources. An online search for biographical details returned many mentions of his name, though little else. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:53, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep an online search returned many mentions of his name because he is a notable criminal defense attorney who has handled several high profile cases, similar to the notability for other criminal defense attorneys on Wikipedia, see Ian Wallach for example.--JumpLike23 (talk) 15:14, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete it doesn't look like there are any sources which cover him significantly and in-depth - mostly simply mentions that he's the lawyer on the case in crime articles - which fails WP:GNG in spite of his high profile work. SportingFlyer talk 03:35, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• This article should be kept because he is notable as a criminal defense attorney. He handled a case that received international coverage, the Hamilton case and he has handled several high profile murder cases in Los Angeles. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.197.73.6 (talk) 02:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – He is notable for multiple legal cases (passes WP:BLP1E) and is notable in general (passes WP:GNG). Yes, most of the coverage may be trivial, but it still makes him notable since primary sources don't affect notability per WP:BASIC. He passes WP:ANYBIO due to criteria #2, where he has received significant attention for expertise in his field (Hamilton Case per above). Redditaddict69 12:44, 19 August 2018 (UTC) CHANGING VOTE to DELETE per SportingFlyer. Redditaddict69 07:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:BASIC specifically requires secondary sources. Also, "multiple legal cases" doesn't make someone notable - then any run-of-the-mill attorney would be notable. We need coverage of him, not mentions of him in articles talking about a different case. I'm also concerned about the high numbers of IP addresses voting keep. SportingFlyer talk 03:06, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete despite being mentioned by some serious media like Reuters most of the sources are passing mentions, not significant coverage. -- Gprscrippers (talk) 16:13, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since most of the sources are not about him but his work, mentioning him only in passing, and I doubt the Hamilton case is something that historians will write books about. Trivial coverage is not sufficient to clear GNG, nor does the current state of available sources look to clear WP:BASIC. That said, he may well distinguish himself in the future. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - his award from the National bar indicates he's "up and coming", but not quite notable yet. Bearian (talk) 20:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep he is notable for the multiple high-profile legal cases and received significant attention for his handling of the Dontre Hamilton case which was a part of the Black Lives Matter movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.83.168.249 (talk) 23:32, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep he is notable for all the reasons stated above.64.60.249.85 (talk) 16:06, 25 August 2018 (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.