Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marc Kligman

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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Kligman

[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)

Not notable lawyer. Fails WP:GNG ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:57, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:57, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:57, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:57, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:57, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BIO. Page is adequately sourced with independent secondary sources, several of which discuss the subject exclusively. Yoninah (talk) 18:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It has significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 00:54, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable.A.Jacobin (talk) 14:54, 27 June 2019 (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.