Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bryan McGuire

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. I'm sorry Crispincornerstone but I have to agree with the "delete" !voters here He isn't notable yet. Also a note to those who objected to the relisting. AFD is not PROD. For an article to be deleted here, somebody aside from the nominator has to say delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan McGuire[edit]

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

Nothing notable about this person. He's a lawyer who has argued cases, and talked to the media about the cases he has argued. (Personally, I would have thought this meant A7, as there is nothing important or significant here, but an admin disagreed with me). Singularity42 (talk) 13:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have declared a COI. I thought he warrants an entry as he meets three of the five notability points

Significant coverage - press coverage
Reliable - newspapers and court references are reliable
Sources - as above
Independent of the subject - No I have declared a COI
Presumed - for the editor

The cases listed in the Supreme Court and the House of Lords are all important cases that demonstrate this person is a leading silk, like many others listed on here. How do I show that? Crispincornerstone (talk) 13:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are misinterpreting significant coverage in WP:NOTABILITY. What it says is "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. Let's go through the various sources provided:

The first article mentions the subject in passing, where he is named as counsel for one of the parties, and gives a one-sentence quote saying what his client will do in response to the decision.
The second article does not mention the subject at all.
The third article does not mention the subject at all.
The fourth article mentions the subject in passing, noting he is counsel for one of the parties, and quotes a sentence he said to the judge.
The fifth article is an expansion of the fourth article, but adds nothing else for the subject.
The sixth article does not mention the subject at all.
The seventh article mentions the subject in passing, noting that he is counsel for one of the parties.

If there were articles about this person, that would be different, but there aren't. Many lawyers and barristers are mentioned as counsel for parties in litigation by newspapers. That does not mean we have a Wikipedia article on every single lawyer and barrister. Singularity42 (talk) 14:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK Thanks I will find relevant content and add to page.Crispincornerstone (talk) 14:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I really disagree with re-listing this discussion. The only comment suggesting a possible keep comes from the article's creator who was unable to provide any reliable sources that supports the subject's notability. No other policy based arguments have been suggested for keeping the article. 00:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete There's no need to relist this as the article in question obviously fails WP:GNG, as discussed above. Ducknish (talk) 02:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No apparent assertion of notability in the article. EEng (talk) 13:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The entry should remain. An informed appreciation of what to look for in considering whether a lawyer is notable is required. The ultimate test of whether a lawyer is notable is the frequency with which he or she has appeared in the ultimate appeal court, which, in England and Wales, is the House of Lords/the Supreme Court. Few advocates have appeared this often in cases of such significance, or across this range. None of those commenting adversely on this entry address any of those cases or their significance. The cases include leading authorities on the measure of damages in the law of contract, leading decisions on homelessness and housing generally, and on the provision of community care. In virtually all of those cases the appearance has been for local authorities, indicating prominence in that key sector. In fact he has appeared in about 100 reported cases, of which these key decisions form a representative sample. Accordingly the main focus ought to be on the importance of the cases cited, and in our respectful view the case on prominence and being notable is made good amply.

Turning to the press cuttings, they attest to the fact that this person is involved in many of the major local authority cases of the day. Looking for quotes by him, or for interviews with the press, is simply to miss the point. The point is that in high profile cases involving local authorities, there is a consistent use of the same leading counsel. I have added links to directories (not a popular source I know) that show he is a notable QC. Whilst I previously declared a COI I should mention that I no longer work at Chambers,Crispincornerstone (talk) 14:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, an informed appreciation of Wikipedia policy on notability (WP:GNG) is required, not your personal ideas of what that policy should be. Please direct your arguments to GNG or other applicable guideline (perhaps WP:ACADEMIC?). No one's commented on the importance of the cases because they aren't the subject of the article -- the man is (WP:NOTINHERITED). EEng (talk) 17:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. There Will Always Be an England Dept. (From the Chambers & Partners directory listing for Bryan McGuire): SILKS Bryan McGuire QC is both "a formidable opponent" and "a lovely man, who is thoroughly decent, and has a very good manner with everybody." [1]

Delete per the nom statement. Lord Roem (talk) 17:11, 4 May 2012 (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.