Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James O'Toole (tax lawyer)

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. No consensus on a redirect. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

James O'Toole (tax lawyer)

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

This cropped up after a block for NLT by an account claiming to be O'Toole's lawyer. Having looked at it, he's not notable per BLP1E in my book. This is a lawyer whose name appeared in the Paradise Papers and therefore got some coverage in reliable sources. The Guardian article is about him (bear in mind the Guardian published a ton of articles about PP), the BBC one is about a selection of "dodgy" tax advisers. Not convinced. Black Kite (talk) 23:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We'd usually delete 'tax avoidance' lawyers on site if they were American; same here. If not for the paper leak nobody would even be able to pick him out of a lineup. WP:N not met. Nate • (chatter) 01:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing here is close to enough to establish notability. Even if some of his actions were found to be criminal, which they may or may not be, I have no clue, that would still not be enough for notability unless we got substantial and sustained coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Löschen, per nom - fails WP:BLP1E. fish&karate 09:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Guy re redirecting to Paradise papers once deleted. fish&karate 12:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though a redirect to paradise papers might be appropriate since the name is a likely search term. Guy (Help!) 11:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect, this is one event, the individual's role in the event was minimal, there is not likely to be ongoing coverage mentioning him.Jacona (talk) 12:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see the point of a redirect to paradise papers because 'James O'Toole (tax lawyer)' is a lot to type. Entering 'James O'Toole' brings the reader to a DAB page, and there it may be worth writing something like 'James O'Toole, who was named in the paradise papers affair.' Jip Orlando (talk) 15:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet the notability guidelines. It's not sufficient to simply be named in the Paradise Papers scandal.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 17:52, 21 January 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.