Talk:Malcolm Bishop

Untitled
It is ridiculous to suggest that this article should be deleted because it is blatant advertising. I was the creator of this article more than a year and four months ago. In all that time nobody has suggested to me until now that there is any advertising involved. I have absolutely no personal connection with Malcolm Bishop. I have never met him or communicated with him. I created this article because he is an eminent lawyer.--Oxonian2006 16:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope I have improved this article now. I have taken out everything that was merely copied from his commercial website and I have added important information about his having twice stood for Parliament and having apparently been at one time intended to become the senior law officer for the Welsh government.--Oxonian2006 16:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, article now asserts notability more clearly and advertising elements removed. I have removed the speedy deletion tag Parslad 17:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see why this chap merits his own article. I have nothing against him personally, but there are about 1000 practising QCs, and many rather more eminent than Mr Bishop. What is it about him? Ironman1104 17:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * He is not just a QC. There are other reasons why he is noteworthy. The article is not asserting that he is particularly eminent but that he has notability. A person may be eminent but not notable.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 19:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)