Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Baugh Allen


 * 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 keep‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

George Baugh Allen

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Nothing much on the page which shows notability, does not appear to be much else which could be added. WP:NOTGENEALOGY JMWt (talk) 09:33, 5 November 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  12:23, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Law, England,  and Wales. JMWt (talk) 09:33, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Satisfies GNG, AUTHOR and criteria 3 of ANYBIO. Significant coverage in books and periodical articles. There are obituaries/biographies/profiles. Biography in Boase's Modern English Biography: . In particular, there is an obituary in the Illustrated London News of 26 November 1898, p 806. Multiple book reviews include, in particular:   . He was considered to be one of (and the last of) the greatest special pleaders ever. (A search for "last of the great special pleaders" in Google Books brings up various publications for this). Consider for example "still for some forty years no name has more often appeared in the records of common law actions than that of this famous Special Pleader": . He was was involved in the drafting of the law that created the rules and forms of pleading used in the courts, and was the co-author of a standard work on the subject. The article does not violate NOTGENEALOGY, as the article already includes details of his career as a lawyer and government official, which is part of what he is notable for. James500 (talk) 17:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - If kept, this needs to be expanded to provide much more detail on his career, rather than just his family. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:49, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * How? This doesn't help.  Uncle G (talk) 04:19, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * There are a lot of obituaries in 1898, ranging from the London Gazette through professional journals to The Elizabethan, magazine of Westminster School. I cannot read any except the last one, and it actually says less than this article does, because it's only interested in this person's school and university qualifications.  The ODNB matches turn out to be a mention in a relative's biography.  3 out of James500's 4 books reviews are substantial, though, and indicate scope for expansion.  The fourth is 3 sentences.  Uncle G (talk) 04:19, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * A question: can we use book reviews as a sign of notability for the author? Unless they substantially cover the author - rather than the book - how can they be considered a RS for notability here? JMWt (talk) 09:57, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The idea is that a biographical article is about someone's life and works. So as long as the sources are suitably good, journal reviews by fellow experts being preferable (although they do have a tendency to talk about themselves rather than what they are reviewing, sometimes), one can fill out a biography with verifiable reliably sourced content about the person's works.  Taking the The Law Magazine and Review review pointed to, for example: This tells us what's discussed in the book, and it's not some entertainment magazine.  Its editor is Thomas Pitt Taswell-Langmead.  I could probably get a moderately sized paragraph out of that if I were writing.  Uncle G (talk) 10:27, 20 November 2023 (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.