Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deborah Regal

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 redirect to List of former members of the Metropolitan Police Authority. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Deborah Regal

Deborah Regal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to be a notable person covered directly and in detail by multiple reliable sources (ie. WP:GNG) – for instance, The Times source in its entirety says, "During a 10-year City career in foreign exchange sales, Regal worked at Bloomberg and JP Morgan. Now studying for the Bar, she is also an independent member of the Metropolitan Police Authority and was named Pro Bono Hero by the attorney-general for her legal charity work." Is this detailed, significant coverage? I would have to say not. The same goes for the other (malformatted) references. ╟─TreasuryTag►Osbert─╢ 15:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep per 2009 recognition by Management Today magazine.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

  Can you quote the significant coverage from that magazine, because I'm unable to spot any myself? Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►Alþingi─╢ 15:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - the article needs the links converted to actual references, but the Times link works for me, for now. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

  You mean aside from being trivial, rather than significant, coverage, one assumes? ╟─TreasuryTag►collectorate─╢ 16:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 16:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

*Delete - no specific assertion of notability. The times link, as a one to watch doesn't cut it for me, at all. Nothing found in my search that would provide the independent , focused commentary about her that would support an article about her life under a WP:GNG pass. - Off2riorob (talk) 16:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Delete There are a few mentions of her in reliable sources, but it appears to be trivial coverage to me. It doesn't appear to me that she meets a specific subject guideline, but I'm open to correction if I've missed something. Qrsdogg (talk) 17:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Actually, I'm not against a redirect to List of former members of the Metropolitan Police Authority. Qrsdogg (talk) 22:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Delete Many sites/magazines make up "top X to watch" - but that in and of itself is not enough to be notable. Did they actually do something after being first seen? That would be the real clincher. This person - not so much that I can find anywhere. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
• She's an independent member of the Metropolitan Police Authority: a position of significant power and she's attracted quite a lot of attention for a lawyer of her youth. It's up for grabs whether this makes her, strictly speaking, "notable" by Wikipedia's guidelines. The mistake that Off2riorob, Qrsdogg and Bwilkins are making is to assume that a lack of notability means "delete". It doesn't. It means "redirect to Metropolitan Police Authority". See WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD for detailed reasoning here. Whatever we decide to do about this article, it won't involve the use of the delete button.—S Marshall T/C 20:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

  Why a redirect to the MPA rather than to JP Morgan or to Bloombergs, if we're going down that line? ╟─TreasuryTag►Odelsting─╢ 20:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

  Read. Comprehend. Think. Edit. JP Morgan and Bloombergs are just law firms firms with legal departments, but the Metropolitan Police Authority is a political quango that wields significant practical authority.—S Marshall T/C 20:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

  Regal resigned from the MPA last year. A redirect to Metropolitan Police Authority would make sense only if that article were to become an archive of former as well as current members (yes, the article is out of date). --88.109.60.234 (talk) 21:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

  Thank you - I updated the article. Off2riorob (talk) 21:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Redirect to list of former members of the Metropolitan Police Authority per the discussion above.—S Marshall T/C 21:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

  Redirect to a redlink not notable list...are you serious? Off2riorob (talk) 21:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

  It's no longer a redlink, and it's perfectly notable.—S Marshall T/C 21:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

  Enjoy yourself then. I imagine if you don't populate it it will get some deletion attention. Off2riorob (talk) 21:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

  I should imagine so.—S Marshall T/C 21:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Redirect to list of former members of the Metropolitan Police Authority, thanks to S Marshall. - Off2riorob (talk) 06:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep per nom as the Times quotation is certainly detailed, significant coverage and the rest is a matter of ordinary editing per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 22:31, 21 July 2011 (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! 05:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

---

• Delete. She looks pretty ordinary to me. A minor offical and she had a few jobs. Refs are trivial. Szzuk (talk) 07:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
• Redirect to newly created list. Still not enough coverage for BLP. Might be notable one day; sources certainly point subject's career to be rising. Times article amplifying the Haymarket Group top 35 list puts this right at the edge. Sourcing the subject's place on a list is appropriate coverage at this time. BusterD (talk) 12:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
• Redirect to list above. --Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 13:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Coverage clearly exists on her as per Colonel Warden. VERTott 09:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

  She has ~50 words in that times article. It's a trivial mention. Szzuk (talk) 19:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. VERTott 09:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep The Times coverage is enough.[1] Its not the size of the mention, but what she is mentioned for. A major news source put her on their list. "They are high achievers and their careers are being forged in the toughest of times - amid a recession. The 35 women under 35 picked by Management Today are the first in a generation to see such a downturn". This is something of an accomplishment. Its not the top 35 people someone famous has dated, run over, or vomited on. This is a significant achievement, not just some trivial nonsense. Dream Focus 03:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I would say this is a reasonable argument for notability. I would say at the least, she is clearly on the cusp of having enough notability, and although we can't see the future, her work so far is clearly being recognized as notable. -- Avanu (talk) 13:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• • It's a trivial mention because the article isn't about her. She is just one of 35 women in the list and given ~50 words. How about we wait until she has an article written about her? Being in a newspaper list doesn't convey notability. Szzuk (talk) 07:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

  • • First mentioned in http://www.managementtoday.co.uk/news/915845 and then in Times who thought it notable enough to cover as well. So did her old college: BPP Law School alumni newletter. She gets mentioned at http://www.barcouncil.org.uk/CareersHome/ProfileLibrary/DeborahRegal/ which doesn't profile many people. She received a national award/recognition given to her by the Attorney General. [2] "At an 11th November reception in the House of Commons Members' Dining Room, the Attorney General, Baroness Scotland, recognised members of the legal profession from across the country who ..." "Deborah Regal (GDL London 07/08), for her employment pro bono work and for her significant efforts in raising awareness about pro bono among MPs for their constituents." Dream Focus 11:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The management today article is identical to the times article, presumably they had permission to copy - a trivial mention. The e-newsletter...doesn't "e-newsletter" tell you anything? And she has a bio on the bar council website, well she is in the bar council, so its hardly independant. So what else is there? Szzuk (talk) 11:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• Redirect: no, two sentences in The Times does not count as "significant coverage", other sources in the article do not appear to be third-party, and Google News/Books does not appear to turn up any information on this Deborah Regal. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
• Delete - insufficient coverage in independent reliable sources to pass WP:BIO. Robofish (talk) 23:43, 2 August 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.