Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrian Davies


 * 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. ansh 666 04:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Adrian Davies

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A lawyer who has represented some notable clients, but appears to fall just on the non-notable side of WP:GNG. An unsuccessful dabbling in fringe politics and a somewhat bizarre legal case involving a family member do not appear to confer notability either, neither does having a notable parent. I suspect that an element of WP:COATRACK is involved here too, concentrating rather on the subject's clients rather than the subject themselves. Shritwod (talk) 21:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Lots of namechecks, but all the sources are actually about something else. We are basically weaving an article about a minor lawyer who specialises in defending neo-Nazis, out of passing mentions in the cases where he generally fails. Guy (Help!) 21:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. cinco deL3X1  ◊distænt write◊  22:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. cinco deL3X1  ◊distænt write◊  22:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. cinco deL3X1  ◊distænt write◊  22:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Extensive coverage of subject regardless of his clients. And regardless of his legal career: he is one of the "intellectuals" behind extreme right politics in the UK (and US connections). Emeraude (talk) 11:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:GNG; none of the sources constitutes significant coverage. Ralbegen (talk) 14:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails GNG. Notability is not inherited and this subject has done nothing "worthy of notice". Otr500 (talk) 20:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete We need to thoroughly examine this because there is a high likelihood of further discussion. I think that the notability guideline for attorneys based on their legal work created by is most useful in cases like these.  Of the criteria he proposes the only one that comes close to matching this subject is "...trying a notable case, which has its own article in Wikipedia" regarding the appeal in David Irving's trial.  Even there, the appeal was not actually allowed to proceed and Davies isn't even mentioned in the relevant BBC article.  The only other qualification from that which might apply is "...being recognized as an expert in a specialized area of law" but Davies's claim to a "specialized area" is only defending those accused of anti-Semitism.  That, however, is a result of his selection of clients, not an the area of law so he fails the most-applicable SNG. The other SNG that might apply is WP:NPOLITICIAN as the chairman of two minor parties but he has never held office and his greatest electoral success is receiving all of 473 votes in a Parlimentary seat election.  That's no help to retention.  As mentioned by the other editors above, the subject also fails the GNG and WP:ANYBIO standards.  While there is coverage in independent, reliable sources of Davies, none of it is significantly about Davies.  The most extensive coverage in such sources is a two-sentence passing mention in this New Statesman article.  The coverage that is significant is non-independent, being produced by Davies or his parties. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per, citing my standards. Nothing what this guy has done is more than what any run or the mill lawyer, including myself, has done. Every single barrister in England must be a member of the Inns of Court. The field of anit-Semitism defense is so marginal and obsure as not to be a speciality at all. He got less than 2 % of the vote the only time he actually contested ("stood for") an election. Lawyers are supposed to make appeals. The media coverage about him is not very deep. The subject is marginal, at best. Let's compare this to the professor test: Has this lawyer done anything more than the average lawyer? The answer must be in the negative. Bearian (talk) 19:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Freedom Party (United Kingdom). JASpencer (talk) 14:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.