Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Groharing

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 Omar Khadr#Second tribunal. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Groharing

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

Unclear to me what the arguments are for his notability. He is quoted sometimes, as happens with lawyers in more-or-less high profile xases. He is married to a notable person. But where has he received the significant attention needed to have an article? Of the seventeen current sources, most are about Khadr, or not significant, or not independent (army sources). None I found is really or even partially about Groharing. Basically this is a WP:BLP1E about someone involved with but not notable for one event, i.e. one court case. Fram (talk) 09:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 13:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 13:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Omar Khadr#Second Tribunal. ~~Regardless of my negative opinion of Omar Khadr~~, the subject of this AfD has received all of his significant coverage in relation to the tribunal of Omar Khadr. I have not found any significant coverage of the Soldier/Officer that is not related to the prosecution of Omar Khadr. If there is, this article can be recreated. However, as all the reliable sources are in relation to the prosecution of Omar Khadr, per WP:BIO1E, this article should be changed into a redirect to the event which the subject is notable for.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems to lack "significant coverage" (not post 2007?) in reliable sources so not notable per WP:GNG. Redirect would also work per RightCowLeftCoast. Anotherclown (talk) 09:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:28, 19 November 2014 (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.