- 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) 00:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- Liza Gordon-Saker ( | 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 Circuit judges in England and Wales are de facto notable individuals. There are over 600 of these and they rank below high court judges. Uhooep ( talk) 04:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:41, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:41, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:41, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. The nominator is right about the lack of inherent notability for circuit judges in the legal system of England and Wales. A search for sources reveals no significant coverage sufficient to pass WP:NBIO. In her previous role as a District Judge, she issued divorce decrees for a few high-profile people but that's nowhere near enough. I'm not entirely convinced about the notability of her husband, either... Bencherlite Talk 23:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and above. My news sweeps did not find in-depth coverage.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 11:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Adopt @Tomwsulcer's rationale. Quis separabit? 03:17, 1 March 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) 00:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- Liza Gordon-Saker ( | 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 Circuit judges in England and Wales are de facto notable individuals. There are over 600 of these and they rank below high court judges. Uhooep ( talk) 04:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:41, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:41, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:41, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. The nominator is right about the lack of inherent notability for circuit judges in the legal system of England and Wales. A search for sources reveals no significant coverage sufficient to pass WP:NBIO. In her previous role as a District Judge, she issued divorce decrees for a few high-profile people but that's nowhere near enough. I'm not entirely convinced about the notability of her husband, either... Bencherlite Talk 23:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and above. My news sweeps did not find in-depth coverage.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 11:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Adopt @Tomwsulcer's rationale. Quis separabit? 03:17, 1 March 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.