Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ifor_Bowen_Lloyd References

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 speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010^Talk 01:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Ifor Bowen Lloyd

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

Two times failed parliamentary candidate. Also I don't believe Circuit judges in England and Wales are de facto notable individuals. There are over 600 of these and they rank below high court judges. All of my recent AFD nominations of English and Welsh Circuit judges have reached a consensus to delete, but of course each AFD should still be judged independently. Uhooep ( talk) 02:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep: I created the article and did so because the subject has a dedicated entry in Who's Who (UK). This source was used in compiling the article with details in the Reference section. I have always worked on the basis that this publication is the UK standard on notability and that anyone who was/is notable enough to command an entry is notable enough to pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I don't know if this source has been used to define if an individual meets Wikipedia notability but in my view it should be. I have not taken part in any AfD discussion on the subject of circuit judges so can't comment other than to say that I would not have been part of any consensus to delete had any of the subjects demonstrated the degree of notability of Lloyd. Graemp ( talk) 08:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment What about Liza_Gordon-Saker (Circuit judge), Laurence Marshall (Circuit judge), Peter Carr (Circuit judge), Jane McIvor (District judge), Jonathan Radway (District judge), Peter Bowsher (QC), Charles Sherrard (QC) etc? All are listed in Who's Who (UK) but were all recently deleted via AFD as they were determined not sufficiently notable. Law is not the only profession in which I believe Who's Who lists individuals who should not be de facto included here. There are currently c. 110 High Court judges of England and Wales. I don't think we need to include all Circuit judges (c. 600), District judges (c. 400) and QC's (2,800+) on top of this just because they appear in Who's Who (UK). Other examples of where I don't believe Who's Who inclusions meet our notability criteria in a de facto sense are private school headteachers another AFD example here and low ranking diplomats (below the rank of Ambassador/High Commissioner (in the UK sense)) to name but a few. In short I don't believe inclusion in Who's Who (UK) should be considered as conferring de facto notability upon a person. Uhooep ( talk) 14:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment I can't comment on articles that have been deleted as I can't see them and therefore do not know how their notability compared with Lloyd's. Perhaps none of them accrued any additional notability outside of their legal creer. I can comment on the deletion discussion and decision for each. All those listed were nominated by the nominator here, all discussions were short, no discussion developed around the nominators contention of notability repeated here and no reason for deletion was given that hinted at the nominators contention. Therefore I would be reluctant to accept any guidance from these deletion decisions. Graemp ( talk) 21:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep: King's Counsel', and according to WP:LAWYERS "A lawyer who has received an appointment that indicates pre-eminence within the profession, such as Queen's Counsel or serjeant at law or senior counsel, shall be treated in the same manner as a person who satisfies criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO (which relates to significant and well known awards or honours)". Also Bencher of his Inn of Court. DuncanHill ( talk) 01:41, 13 March 2016 (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.