Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Calvert Griffiths


 * 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The result was   nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

John Calvert Griffiths

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Declined speedy, despite the assertion that as an attorney general in Hong Kong automatically establishes notability, the relevant criterion on WP:POLITICIAN is a secondary requirement. Passing mention in a couple of articles in google's news archives and books. No significant coverage that I could find, perhaps others will uncover that which I could not. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:POLITICIAN. Being the chief legal officer of a territory of several million people has traditionally been considered grounds for notability. His tenure in high office is sufficiently far in the past that digitized online records may not be readily available, but that's a far cry from saying there aren't likely to be any - indeed, our secondary criteria exist explicitly because we believe it likely that secondary sources do exist. Ray  Talk 22:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment, yes, I understand the reasoning behind the 2ndary criteria. I looked for sources and did not find any. That does not mean such do not exist, but this has been marked an unreferenced BLP from 2009, so there's been time to find sources. Some more time won't hurt, and I'll be happy if sources are found. But simply saying "we assume sources can be found because he's an X" become untenable at some point, no? --Nuujinn (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I spent about fifteen minutes searching academic databases for articles about this guy. All I found were a couple of articles quoting him briefly. Nothing on which to base a Wikipedia article. I don't really see a problem with keeping it as a stub on the off-hand chance someone is trying to find out what his official role once was, especially given that there is no list of Hong Kong Attorneys General to redirect to. But with these sources, this article will never be more than a one-sentence stub.--Chaser (talk) 02:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. Some more sources exist if you search for "John Griffiths" (i.e., without the middle name).      But I think the preferable option is to Redirect to List of Hong Kong attorneys general, and create the latter article. THF (talk) 03:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Plenty of coverage in reliable books is found by this search. I would add that if we are to change the long-standing consensus that government ministers are notable we should do so in a much wider ranging discussion than a single AfD. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn, what Phil Bridger has found looks good enough, thanks! --Nuujinn (talk) 00:10, 7 December 2010 (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.