Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucy bylhouwer

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lucy bylhouwer and John Pavlakis

Lawyer. Has worked for some clients, been on committees, and presented at conferences! Too bad none of that qualifies you for notability. Anon silently removed prod. My Alt Account 19:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, unless it can be established that this is a vanity article, then I'd suggest userfying. Akradecki 19:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I also submit John Pavlakis (similar article) for consideration. I would not userfy before we can establish vanity. It may not be about herself. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• DO NOT DELET. Both lawyers are at the moment working on some major cases, that have been in the news countless times, does HIH and Pan Pharmaceuticals ring a bell? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peapea (talk • contribs) 23:09, 7 September 2006.
  • Googling for +"lucy bylhouwer" +"pan pharmaceuticals" returns only one google hit. Can you explain why either of these cases earns an encyclopedia article for the attorneys involved? My Alt Account 23:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Neither currently meets WP:BIO. Also, the text is verbatim copy from here & here, respectively. -- Scientizzle 18:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • "Lucy bylhouwer" gets only 11 unique Google hits & nothing on Google News. "John Pavlakis" gets 130 unique Google hits & nothing on Google News
• DO NOT DELETE Now, could you define notable for me? As far as i am concerned both these lawyers are extremely notable. Just being involved with Pan and/or HIH seems quite notable to me! I'm not sure if you are familiar with how the law and lawyers work, but whilst a case is being solved etc. the people aren't famous until the case is solved. In this case though they are already famous, so after the trial is adjourned you will already have an entry.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peapea (talk • contribs) .
  • Also, search "John pavlakis" "HIH" "Pan Pharmaceuticals" on google and you get quite a few entries, and if you even venture into one of them it reads " Led by John Pavlakis, Blake Dawson Waldron's 54-partner team advises an ... HIH and Pan Pharmaceuticals in ongoing multi-million dollar litigation ". MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR. He is also listed in the legal500 as one of the leading individuals in dispute resolution. I'm not sure if it's just me, or does that sound notable?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peapea (talk • contribs) .
    • Comment Peapea, Please see WP:BIO for notability guidelines concerning biographies—this is the metric against which these articles will likely be measured. Also, please don't vote more than once, either. -- Scientizzle 18:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom--Peta 05:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

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.