Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nigel Peters


 * 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 speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 01:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Nigel Peters

 * – ( 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. All of my recent AFD nominations of English and Welsh Circuit judges have reached a consensus to delete, but of course each AFD should still be judged independently. Uhooep (talk) 01:27, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: Queen's Counsel, and according to WP:LAWYERS "A lawyer who has received an appointment that indicates pre-eminence within the profession, such as Queen's Counsel or serjeant at law or senior counsel, shall be treated in the same manner as a person who satisfies criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO (which relates to significant and well known awards or honours)".DuncanHill (talk) 01:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Add Also a bencher, indicative of high status recognized by the profession. DuncanHill (talk) 19:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Queen's Counsel as above. Ross-c (talk) 18:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment A lawyer who has received an appointment that indicates pre-eminence within the profession, such as Queen's Counsel, shall be treated in the same manner as a person who satisfies criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO. However WP:BIO states: "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included". There are over 2,800 QCs currently in the UK and most do not receive specific coverage about themselves, rather they receive a passing mention in the media such as "XYZ QC defending ABC said during the trial...". There are also over 600 Circuit judges in England and Wales and again most only receive passing mentions in the press. At least 6 QC biographies were recently deleted as a result of an AFD debate (1 2 3 4 5 6). A batch of District judge and Circuit judge articles were also deleted. Are you saying these articles shouldn't have been deleted? Should their deletion be reversed? It seems too inconsistent to have 6 recent QC bios were everyone voted to delete, and now you're all suggesting to keep. I respect your opinions as members of the community, but I find it a bit frustrating that AFD is proving inconsistent. I only nominated this one because the previous 6 QCs were delete with unanimous approval. Uhooep (talk) 18:46, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I would suggest that the combination of QC and Circuit judge and bencher is suggestive of a higher degree of notability than either on its own. This is not an RfC on all your previous deletion discussions, so please don't try to turn it into one! I'm sorry that you find it frustrating that we are expressing our own opinions, rather than blindly parroting your preferred selection of previous deletions. DuncanHill (talk) 19:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The nominator in the introduction says "each AfD should still be judged independently." I agree with this. Despite this, the nominator's case seems built around the idea that as Peters was a circuit judge and that other circuit judges have recently had their articles deleted, then his should be too. That is not a good enough reason. Peters was demonstrably notable beyond being a circuit judge. Graemp (talk) 20:42, 13 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.