Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Kroger

:{{la|William Kroger}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|William Kroger}})

The references available fail to show any significant coverage of this lawyer, they are just very brief mentions regarding certain cases. Other than those I could only find [http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2011/05/charges_dismissed_against_marijuana_dispensary_ope.php this post] - frankie (talk) 19:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

William Kroger is an active advocate of the medical marijuana and cannabis legalization movement in Los Angeles. The nature of his cases and his involvement in cases that are on the cutting edge of legal decisions regarding privacy, drug law and drug legalization are what make him a notable figure and the reasons why his article should stand. He is one of the individuals responsible for drafting the medical marijuana ordinance in Los Angeles, which was cited in reference No. 6 (http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2011/05/charges_dismissed_against_marijuana_dispensary_ope.php). Kroger has been quoted in The Huffington Post, ABC News -- he is recognized as a subject matter expert in matters of drug legalization and the legality of medical marijuana. If you look at the articles cited, he is often the attorney representing medical marijuana dispensaries and gives advice to growers and dispensers through his YouTube channel. Also, the facts of the thetokeofthetown.com post are included in the 10th reference (http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2011/05/marijuana_case_inglewood.php). - Pln9mg (talk 21:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

:Some of the cases he's been involved with have received media coverage, but the mentions of him are merely incidental as one of the parts of the case. Being contentious, his line of work does naturally attract slightly more attention than usual, but at this point there are no sources available that provide any significant coverage - frankie (talk) 21:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not just "incidental" that he's part of the case, and it's not like he was just some lawyer that happened to represent these dispensaries and growers. He was sought out by medical marijuana dispensaries and by growers to represent them -- why? Because he has a track record of knowing and being a part of the legal mechanisms that made medical marijuana legal in Southern California a reality. He's recognized as a subject matter expert by the media. If his notoriety is "incidental" because of the circumstances that surround him and because of that he's not worthy of a wikipedia page, by that test it could be argued that almost anyone of any note would not be. I also argue again that the work that Kroger is doing, that has been reported in the media, is important and noteworthy. Also, should it be a strike against him is that he doesn't have a PR team that can land him profiles in The Los Angeles Times and The New Yoker? - Pln9mg (talk 23:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

:It is not incidental that he's part of the case, and I have no reason to doubt that he is sought as a lawyer due to his capability as such. What is incidental is the little coverage that he has received due to his participation in those cases, and there aren't any sources that make him the subject of attention in a way that could meet WP:BIO. I appreciate the fact that he doesn't resort to PR for positioning, specially since that makes us more capable of assessing the matter more appropriately, but that doesn't say anything in favor of the subject but only against other subjects, which is why it is normally considered irrelevant - frankie (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I reiterate my previous points and I reiterate that William Kroger is notable. This discussion is going around in circles. We are at an impasse. - Pln9mg (talk 19:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.113.235 (talk)

• Delete: It's not an impasse at all, Pln9mg. A subject doesn't become notable, per Wikipedia guidelines, by you believing that his work is important. He becomes so through him receiving "significant coverage" in multiple reliable, third-party sources. It's well established that notability isn't achieved through being quoted in the newspapers; it's in the newspaper article being about, in this case, Mr. Kroger. Not one qualifying source mentioned in the article does more than deliver a single quote from Kroger amidst several other quotes.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  19:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of notable coverage. When I searched both Yahoo and Google, I did find a William Kroger however it was a William Kroger associated with hypnosis, not an attorney affiliated with cannabis and medical marijuana. SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. A more focused [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22William+Kroger%22+marijuana&btnG=Search+Archives&scoring=a search] for "William Kroger" plus "marijuana" finds a few mentions, but that's all they are: mentions. Similarly, the three sources which are cited in the article as "featuring" Kroger simply quote him, briefly, in cases where he is the attorney or on matters of marijuana legal policy. This situation often comes up with attorneys: simply being the attorney on a case, even a notable case, does not make them notable. And simply being quoted in the newspaper does not amount to the "substantial" coverage required by Wikipedia. --MelanieN (talk) 20:07, 9 July 2011 (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.