Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Liu

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 no consensus‎ . After two relists there still does not appear to be a consensus on whether to keep or redirect the article. Aoidh (talk) 08:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Liu

[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)

Moved to draft, pushed back into mainspace, redirect reverted, notability tags removed. A page patroller's dream, really. Subject is not notable, does not pass WP:GNG, does not demonstrate WP:SIGCOV, either in the article or upon search. Wikipedia is not Crunchbase. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Law, and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems like there's enough reliable sources to warrant an article. The guy's also a co-founder of LegalZoom, so it seems like he passes WP:GNG. Correct me if I'm wrong. // 💪Benzo💪 (Send me a message!) (Here's what I've contributed.) 07:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to LegalZoom, the coverage appears to focus more on the company than Liu himself. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, He meets WP:BASIC which states "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." Please note that he has a lot of coverage. I have also found some new coverage in law360.com and law.com, both behind paywall but you can still read with the free trial. Royal88888 (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:40, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to LegalZoom as it's borderline WP:BIO1E. None of his other ventures even have articles, and sourcing is routine press coverage. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 02:33, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Beemer69 Actually you are wrong about that. All his ventures have at least 1 or 2 citations. The Overture one did not have these law360.com and law.com which I stated above, but I just have added them. Both are behind paywall but you can still read with the free trial.Royal88888 (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - He has coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable and not primary.Pershkoviski (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:25, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Legal Zoom, he's mostly known for that and doesn't seem to have met GNG as a law person alone. Oaktree b (talk) 20:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree bSee my comment below to @SWinxy Royal88888 (talk) 17:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ Weak redirect to LegalZoom. His other ventures cited in the article are not about him per se (and a good amount of those refs are not good sources). A good amount already is or can be on the LegalZoom article. SWinxy (talk) 19:37, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SWinxy per WP:BASIC when full articles are not about him, multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. Plus several sources are not about LegalZoom and are about his other ventures. I would have agreed with you if he was only "known for one thing," but he has also launched multiple other companies and there are independent sources about them, such as law360 and law.com. Royal88888 (talk) 17:26, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean I guess they can be combined. I'll change to a weak redirect. SWinxy (talk) 18:17, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've heard of him, and he appears to be borderline notable, but the evidence of notability is slim. I could go with either keep, merge, or redirect. Bearian (talk) 19:16, 18 April 2023 (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.