Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eifion Roberts

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. Overall consensus is that he meets LAWYER & GNG & As the nom hasn't objected to any of the replies I'm wrapping it up as Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eifion Roberts

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

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. Also stood for Parliament but finished third. Uhooep (talk) 09:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A dedicated entry in Who's Who (UK). This source was used in compiling the article with details in the Reference section. I have always worked on the basis that this publication is the UK standard on notability and that anyone who was/is notable enough to command an entry is notable enough to pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I don't know if this source has been used to define if an individual meets Wikipedia notability but in my view it should be. I have not taken part in any AfD discussion on the subject of circuit judges so can't comment other than to say that I would not have been part of any consensus to delete had any of the subjects demonstrated the degree of notability of Roberts. Graemp (talk) 09:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable judge. Andrew D. (talk) 17:55, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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) 01:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.