Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rowland Thomas Lovell Lee


 * 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. Given the pointy nom, no prejudice to quick relisting. Randykitty (talk) 14:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Rowland Thomas Lovell Lee

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete:Absolutely no claim to notability. Being a Recorder is not sufficiently senior in the judiciary to be notable. Delete. Bristolbottom (talk) 18:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * keepRather WP:IDONTLIKEIT. No valid reason for deletion. The nominator seems to have a WP:COI with User:MJT21.--114.81.255.37 (talk) 11:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. WP:BASIC requires significant coverage in more than one source. There's only one reference at present; I tried a web search but found no additional significant coverage. Qwfp (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That is a meaningless search. The customary abbreviation of "Mr Justice Lee" used in law books is "Lee J". You can't find something like that with Google, unless you know exactly what you are looking for. James500 (talk) 05:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I would have thought such law books were most unlikely to contain significant coverage of him as a person, as opposed to significant coverage of cases over which he presided. Qwfp (talk) 17:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * We would accept citations of his judgements as proof of notability if there were enough citations. We do this with WP:PROF. [Cases from the Crown Court are reported by the Criminal Law Review and they do get cited by treatises]. Likewise, newspaper articles about his cases are not particularly likely to use his full name. What searches did you actually run? His full name proves nothing, because he could just as easily be referred to as "Rowland Lee" or by a stack of cognate expressions. James500 (talk) 03:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * In any event, GNG doesn't require multiple sources in absolute terms. James500 (talk) 06:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Notability says "In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article." Who's Who (UK) says "The entries are compiled from questionnaires returned to the publisher by the featured subjects. Some checks are made by the editors but subjects may say or omit anything they wish." Though an entry may be a reasonably reliable source for the basic facts of a person's life, I don't think an article should be based solely on such an entry as the subject may omit anything they wish so it does not reflect a neutral point of view; nor many entries, including this person's, provide sufficient detail for a comprehensive article. Qwfp (talk) 17:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The article in Who Was Who is a sufficiently comprehensive biography. I don't see how a list of straightforward facts, such as names of parents, where educated, list of jobs, and so forth ("names and dates") can be POV. James500 (talk) 03:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * In any event, there are multiple sources, including the New Law Journal and the London Gazette. James500 (talk) 11:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The snippet of New Law Journal that comes up in a GBooks search on his name clearly shows that his name is one in a list of names; that's certainly not significant coverage. Same for the [//www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/47963/page/12049/data.pdf London Gazette], which includes his name in a list of persons appointed to be Recorders. Qwfp (talk) 17:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The word "significant" in GNG refers to the totality of the coverage. Even if the other sources are entries in lists, it is still multiple sources. James500 (talk) 00:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, there's coverage about this deceased person in other sources including The New Law Journal. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 00:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Would you mind at least providing citations? &mdash;innotata 04:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It comes up immediately in GBooks. James500 (talk) 11:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Inclusion in A & C Black's Who's Who is conclusive proof of notability, similar to an obituary in the NYT. That publication has a reputation for only including notable individuals. If you haven't found additional sources, it can only mean that you have not looked hard enough. The experts who produce that publication are not likely to have made a mistake. James500 (talk) 05:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * He probably satisfies WP:POLITICIAN because the Crown Court is a national court ("national office"). He probably satisfies criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO on grounds that inclusion in A & C Black's Who's Who (hereinafter "WWW") is a significant and well known honour, because it is considered prestigious. WP:NRVE says that an article should not be deleted on notability grounds alone if it is likely that significant coverage exists. The biography in WWW is a strong indicator that it does, perhaps only in print or expressed in language that makes it difficult to find with a search engine. "I can't find it on the internet" is a very weak argument when you consider (as of the last time I checked) that the vast majority of books and newspapers have never been digitised. Finally, if it comes down to this, if the experts from WWW say he is notable, and we say he isn't: they are right and we are wrong (WP:IAR). James500 (talk) 03:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think he does satisfy GNG. James500 (talk) 11:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that in the past we have held full-time Crown Court judges to be inherently notable, let alone recorders. High Court judges, yes, but not ordinary Crown Court judges. It's not really a national office, since these judges sit locally, and in any case WP:POLITICIAN doesn't apply since that was clearly written for American judges; British judges are not politicians or even political appointees. WW certainly does not meet WP:ANYBIO #1. It provides evidence the individual might be notable, but that's all. It wouldn't be considered an honour in that sense. It is usual for all judges and recorders to be given entries. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If the selection board of Who's Who think that all recorders are notable (and I'm not sure how to verify that they do), then we should accept that all recorders are notable. We are not qualified to reject the opinions of experts. We would need a very compelling reason to do that.
 * I can't recall a single instance of a recorder with an entry in Who's Who being deleted, and I have been watching the relevant delsort lists for several years.
 * Under section 23 of the Courts Act 1971, a recorder can sit as a judge of the High Court, so I would question whether there is a sufficiently significant distinction. James500 (talk) 00:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't recall any case of a recorder with no honours, not even a QC, coming up for deletion. I really don't think the fact that a circuit judge or recorder can sit as a judge of the High Court is particularly relevant; it doesn't make them High Court judges. Note that articles on lower-level federal judges in the United States are generally deleted. So you think we should have articles on all judges in the United Kingdom? Okay, but I think you'll find a lot of opposition. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No, what I am saying is that we should have an artcle on every person included in A & C Black's Who's Who unless you can produce a sufficient number of reliable sources that say that a significant proportion of the persons included in Who's Who are non-notable, which I don't imagine you will be able to do. (That publication obviously doesn't include magistrates.) I also think the distinction you are trying to draw between High Court judges and the others is a rather fine one. I wasn't aware that a person qualified as a solicitor can be appointed Queen's Counsel. I think the fact the post is part time is irrelevant because it doesn't change the nature of the powers being exercised (a recorder sitting as such can inflict a sentence of imprisonment for life, and the death penalties for treason, piracy and so forth were a dead letter during the period in question). If articles on lower-level federal judges in the United States are generally deleted, that may nevertheless be irrelevant due to cultural differences between Britain and America. And if there is so much opposition, why has a nomination like this never been done before? James500 (talk) 12:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It has. Articles on judges at a lower rank than High Court judges have certainly been deleted in the past, but most of them don't have articles to delete in the first place. Solicitors can now be appointed QC, but only since 1997, so after Lee's time. Since the vast majority of judges have always been barristers, this isn't really relevant. However, your point about inclusion in WW meaning people are automatically notable enough for Wikipedia has been defeated on many occasions at AfD. Inclusion on WW is a good start, certainly, but it does not mean automatic notability. An obituary in a major national newspaper (which are more selective than WW), however, is usually taken to indicate sufficient notability. I realise that your opinion is that WW is sufficient, and you are of course perfectly entitled to it. I'm just saying that previous AfDs have generally not agreed with you (the point has been raised many times), and therefore the consensus is against you. In addition, WW was once far less selective than it is now; reaching the rank of lieutenant-colonel in the Army, for instance, was once often sufficient, whereas it isn't now. How would you address that imbalance?


 * You will notice, incidentally, that I haven't expressed an opinion as to whether this article should be deleted. I'm neutral. I'm merely pointing out, as a participant in many, many AfDs on biographies of British worthies, that consensus is most definitely against inclusion in WW conferring automatic notability. An obit in The Times or similar does, an honour of the level of CBE or above does (that qualifies quite a few judges, and all High Court judges as recipients of automatic knighthoods), a WW entry does not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Has the total number of biographies in the annual volume decreased? (I'm afraid I can't find the numbers for the old editions). A change in focus isn't an increase in selectivity. I might not care anyway, since I also hold the opinion that the longer someone has been dead, the more likely they are to be notable. And I might ask whether the increase in selectivity reflects a real change in society, such as a decline in the importance of "class", or a change in the size or structure of whatever elite exists. James500 (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * According to Jackson's Machinery of Justice, 8th Ed, CUP, 1989, p 180, in 1979 (the relevant date) there were 307 circuit judges and 412 recorders. That is a small number in absolute terms. It argues for inclusion ("unusual enough to receive or deserve attention"). It is less than half the number of MPs, all of whom satisfy BIO. James500 (talk) 13:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If it was half the number of MPs, I'm assuming you don't actually mean a total of 719 individuals! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * In 1975 (probably close enough in time), there were 1,095 MPs in the Lords (Barnett, Constitutional and Administrative Law, 2nd Ed, p 593). The number in the commons will have been on the order of six hundred. So the total is presumably going to be on the order of seventeen or eighteen hundred, which does seem to be more than twice 719 (admittedly this figure omits judges more senior than circuit judges). I appreciate that the Lords satisfy ANYBIO in addition to POLITICIAN, but even if the honours system was abolished, there would still be an upper chamber, and it doesn't detract from the fact that those people were members of the legislature. James500 (talk) 15:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There are no MPs in the Lords! All the MPs are in the Commons. Members of the Lords are called peers. But I see what you mean now. Still not really relevant though. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 22:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Procedural Keep: SPA is a suspected sock of an indef blocked account, apparently doing a number of these retaliatory AfDs: Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents Nha Trang 18:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Procedural Keep. Too difficult to discern notability with socks and/or SPA on the scene. Re-visit at a later date. Szzuk (talk) 07:27, 9 October 2014 (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.