Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Daniel Chilcott


 * 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 delete. ✗ plicit  01:38, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

William Daniel Chilcott

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No indication of notability. SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 19:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Chilcott is a former Judge and Law Society of Upper Canada treasurer. Treasurer of the Law Society is a sigificant office. User:martinscriminalcode 4 May 2021
 * I understand that, however the office itself does not give inherent notability to the person. Best wishes – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 21:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment doesn't the Ontario Superior Court of Justice position mean he meets WP:NJUDGE?--- Possibly (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Probably not. It has 300 judges and only covers one province. Compare, for instance, the lowest rank of English judges who are generally regarded as qualifying, the High Court Judges, of whom there are only 105 in the entire country! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NJUDGE. Sungodtemple (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   13:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Judges at this level are not inherently notable and there seems to be no other reason for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ontario Superior Court of Justice is certainly a level of judgeship at which a person could be includable if they actually had adequate reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG, but it is not "inherently" notable enough to entitle him to an automatic notability freebie on primary sourcing alone. And no, even being treasurer of the law society still isn't "inherently" notable enough to waive our sourcing rules either. Notability is not measured in terms of the things the article says, it's measured in terms of the quality, depth and reliability of the sourcing that can or can't be shown to support the things it says. Bearcat (talk) 17:57, 20 May 2021 (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.