Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Dudley


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  18:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Michael Dudley

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I don't believe Circuit judges in England and Wales are de facto notable individuals. There are over 600 of these and they rank below high court judges. The only argument for keeping in my view is not positions held or rank as a judge, but that he was quoted by MailOnline, but many people feature in The Mail and we don't keep articles on all of them. Uhooep (talk) 10:57, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  15:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  15:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  15:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep: I don't believe all Circuit judges in England and Wales are de facto notable individuals, however Dudley has an entry in Who's Who which suggests he is particulrly notable. Wikipedia does not put a numerical restriction on how many notable circuit judges it allows. Graemp (talk) 08:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07  ( T ) 00:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep as I would've honestly voted delete but it seems Keep may be best, even if I'm not satisfied with the current amount of sources, this may not be an outstanding priority for deletion yet. SwisterTwister   talk  05:56, 21 March 2016 (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.