User talk:Hannah.rachel0801

Speedy deletion nomination of Jonathan Fisher, QC


A tag has been placed on Jonathan Fisher, QC requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. NtheP (talk) 13:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Fisherjon1 account and this one
If I may, is there a reason you are using both of these accounts? I expect there is a reasonable explanation, but I'd like to make sure you understand our policy on sockpuppetry, which is the use of additional accounts used to provide support for your 'side' in arguments over content. If it is your intention to use this account as your only account, you should cease editing with the Fisherjon1 account. Let me know if I can provide any assistance. Syrthiss (talk) 13:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you - yes. There are in fact two users trying to set up this page. I, Jonathan's daughter, took over the management of this site in order to set it up on his behalf. I hope that is ok. Is there a problem with the content? If so, please could you tell me how I need to change it so that it is ok for wiki pages? thank you for your help, Hannah


 * Alrighty, thats not a problem then. As to the content of the page, you might want to see WP:N (our notability guidelines).  While we don't have a specific set of criteria for lawyers, in general you need to establish using independent sources that your father meets:


 * 1) The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for one.
 * 2) The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.


 * I'm afraid that notability is sometimes a hard thing to establish, so I'd like to advise you if your father's article is removed to try and establish the above and if you can...create the page in your userspace like you did before but before you move it out into the article space please consider asking for someone to give you an opinion. Syrthiss (talk) 14:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you - So, I should wait for the page to be deleted before I start again? Are you able to delete it for me so I can start again, or should I ammend it now? thank you again Hannah.rachel0801 (talk) 14:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No no, feel free to amend it now since amending it now may help it avoid deletion. If you want more time to work on it without people commenting on it, you can blank it and we'll take that as you wanting it to be deleted...or you can move it back to a subpage here. Syrthiss (talk) 14:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Rachel, on the basis that you'll try and establish notability for your father, I've no objection to removing my CSD from the page and replace with  if you don't want to move it back to your own pages.  I know it might not sound like it but I don't have anything against your father (except perhaps that he's a Conservative :-) ) and am only concerned that Wikipedia contains articles of merit - which can be difficult as Syrthiss says.
 * If you want me to do this then leavde me a note on here. NtheP (talk) 14:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you - I've been working on it as you left me that message. If you could remove your CSD and replace it with undercnstruction - that would be very helpful and kind of you. I feel that the changes I have made already establish part of the notability of my father. Thank you for your advice and help - please inform me of other changes I need to make (wiki criteria is very new to me). Thank you, Hannah Hannah.rachel0801 (talk) 14:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Done and I apolgise for getting your name wrong. NtheP (talk) 14:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I did some rewriting. We refer to people by their last name, and avoid repeating it too often. I removed some statements of opinion and unsupported claims of vague importance. The main thing that is needed now is exact bibliographic citations and book reviews for what he has already written. It would help also to have some reference that the 2011 book has actually been accepted for publication--that's a long way ahead.
 * One thing: you mention "the management of this site". You may be managing his own web site, but you are not managing his page here. No person has ownership, and certainly not the subject or someone connected with him.    DGG ( talk ) 22:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you - will keep working on it. Hannah.rachel0801 (talk) 18:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC) Thank you for your advice. The information is now all resourced with reliable and independent links. The sources show the notability of the subject and the public interest in his credibility. Please could you verify this suffices so that it can be posted in its final form. Thank you (Hannah.rachel0801 (talk) 12:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC))
 * I've had a look and I'm no expert on establishing notability so I can't guarantee that my suggestions/comments will carry any weight but I think it's still missing, not necessarily becasue the sources/references aren't there but because they aren't showing in the best light;
 * 1) I'm sure you've read WP:BIO until you are sick of it so you'll realise what has to be achieved. Now with your father there are two, possibly three areas of his life which could make him notable
 * a) his work as a lawyer. He's a silk, not that it's enough on his own, but it's a start.  Look at his case work - is there anything here that is extraordinary.  I took a brief glimpse at his resume on his chambers website - there's some heavy cases there e.g. the Southwark £250 million VAT fraud.  Have any of these set legal precedents (at Court of Appeal, House of Lords/Supreme Court level) and if so is that as a result of his pleadings?  If so that's something to use  'Fisher was the leading lawyer in (case) which set the precedent of (result) . . .' 
 * b) his academic work (see also WP:PROF). I haven't looked in detail at any of the titles he's written/edited/contributed to, but are any of them the leading work in there area?  An alternative is his being general editor of Lloyds Rep FC although this would need an explanation of what is notable about the reports
 * c) his political life. Ok so he's director research for the Society of Conservative Lawyers.  Does this post set Tory party policy etc? or is it just advisory?  The latter is not helpful, after all the editor of the Daily Mail influences Tory (and Labour) party policy.
 * 2) Whichever (some or all) you need to get those into the lead paragraph. That's the 'woomph' bit, why should I as an average Wikipedia reader bother to read any more of this article?  Because the lead paragraph says this guy is interesting and I should read more.  I think at the moment you're relying on c) and personally I think that is the weakest option.  It could almost be said that without a) and/or b), c) wouldn't have happened.  In the current political situation here in the UK, I can see why a temporary emphasis on politics is interesting but in the longterm I think a) or b) is a better bet.
 * 3) The text style does read like a CV. Lots of one line statements which don't tell us a lot about your father.  Take his fellowship of the Chartered Institute of Taxation.  Obviously that wasn't awarded for nothing so tell us more about it, tell us under what circumstances such an honour is awarded.  If it's a 'comes up with the rations honour' e.g. just for being a member for x years it's not notable, but if there is some specific attributable reason then share it with us.  Did the CIT make some of presentation or citation outlining why the fellowship was awarded?  (I hope you see what I'm getting at here)
 * 4) Don't be hagiographic. This is Wikipedia so if there is validated (note that) criticism or controversary (again verifiable) of your father then you need to include that.  I know that can be uncomfortable but in the interests of fairness it really does need to be quoted.  It's not gossip or tittle-tattle that's sought but independently sourced material.  There might be none which is fair enough but if there is please don't ignore it because the subject is too close to home. See WP:BLP for more detail on how to handle this.
 * 5) Include some background e.g. education, which Inn he belongs too (I had to look it up to add the necessary category - I hope I got it right)
 * 6) Just to conclude, there is a very good chance that your father is notable, but as yet I don't think it's expressed correctly.
 * I hope this helps, if you want to discuss it any more, just leave a message on here (I've added your talk page to my watch list for the time being. Alternatively if you want to reject or ignore me, I won't be offended.  As I said I'm no expert on what constitutes notability so all that I've said might be complete b*llocks!  There is a Wiki Project Biography and asking the opinion of some of the members of that project will proably help you more than me.  See the project page, part way down is a list of project members who are also admins who can hopefully give you more advice. NtheP (talk) 12:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi again. I've had a look and made some changes.  Most notably to add wikilinks and grammatically, to try and remove some of the short sentences by combining them - although there is probably more that can be done in this respect.
 * Other things I would suggest -
 * don't take references from the personal website, a more reliable source would be the chambers website.
 * some acronyms need explaining especially in the first sentence of the Awards section.
 * for politeness sake, naming the co-authors of books would be a good touch.
 * criticism of defrauding the Revenue needs expanding to explain what the criticism was, if that can be done in reasonably simple language. It doesn't need to be an essay but just a couple of sentences.
 * criticism by Justice, what were they critical of? Just his political leanings or his interpretation of the law, or something else?
 * there is a lot of Capitalisation of words in here. Are they all correct/necessary?
 * don't forget you're writing for an international audience, not just a British one. Therefore terms like the Shadow Front Bench don't mean a thing to a lot of people.  I've chnaged this to Conservative Party, you might want to expand this to say which part of the party.
 * I've included a fact template at one point where there is a definite need for a citation; namely that the Hunt case was the biggest VAT fraud at the time.
 * I've removed the notability and conflict of interest tags because I don't think they are applicable anymore, other editors may not agree, so don't be surprised or upset if they do re-appear. If they do ask those editors what they think the issues are.
 * that said I think it still does read a bit resume like e.g. shared a platform with Dominic Grieve and? so what? big deal? i.e. why is this a significant or notable event. I'm not sure how to improve on this so you might want to ask around.  Again WP:BIOGRAPHY might be a good place to try.


 * Bearing in mind, your closeness to the subject I think you've made a really good effort to avoid a COI. I hope that once you've done some more on this subject, you'll look at/create other articles and not become a one trick pony.  Again if I can help anymore please leave a message for me. NtheP (talk) 19:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Jonathan Fisher (lawyer)
Hello Hannah.rachel0801. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Jonathan Fisher (lawyer), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''you are not the only author of the article - WP:PROD or WP:AFD instead. .''' Thank you. 7 09:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Fisher and McGrigors
There are numerous articles about Fisher joining and leaving McGrigors, so presumably this is relevant to his bio. Hairhorn (talk) 18:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)