Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Carter-Ruck


 * 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. Closing early per WP:SNOW. At this point it's obvious that this article isn't going to be deleted. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Peter Carter-Ruck

 * – ( View AfD View log )

non notable person. Should be merged with 'carter ruck' law firm if left to stand at all. There are no notable cases from this lawyer or changes in law. He just started the law firm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.46.187 (talk • contribs)


 * Query - Are IP nominations kosher? I thought they weren't. No opinion on whether this should be kept or nixed. Carrite (talk) 03:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A registered editor completed this AfD on behalf of the IP user, so this nomination is not a problem. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Don't even need to search to see that this person has notability independently of the firm he founded; two full-length articles about him in major national broadsheet newspapers are already used as references in the article itself. I particularly like the Guardian one; "he did for freedom of speech what the Boston Strangler did for door-to-door salesmen", not to mention describing him as "the leading libel lawyer". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. I agree that there are some solid sources cited by the article, and a quick search shows a number of third party sites with info on him. Millermk90 (talk) 08:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Shome mishtake, shurely?. Warden (talk) 09:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes GNG and merger with Carter-Ruck is inappropriate since most of his career was not in that practice. --AJHingston (talk) 14:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per the above. The IP was advised before he/she put this AfD forward that it did not have a snowball in hell's chance. And so it is. PCR has 20+ years of non-trivial coverage in Private Eye, and plentiful non-trivial coverage in more mainstream media. The existing refs of the article demonstrate compliance with GNG. It is difficult to see this as anything other than a bad faith (or at least a tremendously ill-informed, bordering on stupid) AfD, and I recommend a snowball-keep, so as to minimise time wasted on considering the matter further. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per the above. Autarch (talk) 23:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Very famous British libel lawyer.  Hey, we lawyers don't have many celebrities: we need to preserve the ones that we do have... --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Unfortunate that anyone saw fit to complete this nomination on behalf of the IP as it is thoroughly misguided. There are many sources covering him in detail and separately from the firm he founded, especially multiple obituaries. Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Well known to Private Eye readers anyway, but the Guardian obituary swings it in the direction of notable for me. --Ritchie333 (talk) 14:34, 14 December 2011 (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.