- 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. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Jane McIvor ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I don't believe a District judge is de facto notable Uhooep ( talk) 09:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - could not find any significant coverage from third party sources to pass WP:GNG. Also the cases mentioned do not meet threshold for general notability to be included on Wikipedia. Kagundu Wanna Chat? 07:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- delete merely a district judge. And presiding over a case over a notable person doesn't make you notable. LibStar ( talk) 14:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete based on review of current references; need more in-depth references. I can change my mind if better references are found.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 14:33, 23 February 2016 (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.
- 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. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Jane McIvor ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I don't believe a District judge is de facto notable Uhooep ( talk) 09:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - could not find any significant coverage from third party sources to pass WP:GNG. Also the cases mentioned do not meet threshold for general notability to be included on Wikipedia. Kagundu Wanna Chat? 07:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- delete merely a district judge. And presiding over a case over a notable person doesn't make you notable. LibStar ( talk) 14:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete based on review of current references; need more in-depth references. I can change my mind if better references are found.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 14:33, 23 February 2016 (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.