Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John da Cunha

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. (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

John da Cunha

These obituary articles are always tricky. The guy has obviously done some good things but he never made high court judge nor was actually in charge of a major project. Few Google hits, here. BlueValour 19:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. His connection with the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal qualifies him as notable. I'd feel more comfortable with more than just two obituaries as citations, though. But I think he squeaks by. Scorpiondollprincess 19:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - fair point but he was only an unqualified junior counsel and doesn't get a mention in the main article. BlueValour 20:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. There had to have been hundreds, if not thousands, of junior counsels at Nuremberg, so I don't think that does it. The rest of the article shows a successful lawyer who rose to a judgeship. Based on Template:CourtsEnglandWales, I really can't tell whether High Court Judge, one step above a county judge, is a high enough level to make all its holders inherently notable. Perhaps someone more expert in British law could offer an opinion? Fan-1967 23:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - this guy didn't make high court judge in any case. There is an even higher level called a Law Lord. Some high court judges are notable by means of chairing notable enquiries, writing books or presiding at notable trials but they are not notable in their own right.

• IANAL but ... He was a Deputy High Court Judge, which I think means he was a Circuit Judge who on occasion deputised at the High Court. I would say that a High Court Judge is automatically notable but that a Circuit Judge is not. There are 17 High Court Judges in the Chancery Division, 64 in the Queen's Bench Division, 19 in the Family Division, and six in the Technology and Construction Court. Meanwhile there are hundreds of Circuit Judges. David | Talk 23:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Gosh - an AFD! I am honoured that someone is reading my obit articles :) I refrained from writing an article on this chap in June, when an obit was published in The Times, but could not resist when The Daily Telegraph published one too. I agreed with User:Dbiv that a High Court judge should automatically qualify as notable (they are the top 100 or so judges in the UK, and all have been eminent lawyers), but this person was only a circuit judge - a more junior judge, of whom there must be many hundreds, most of whom are not very notable at all. (Yes, a deputy High Court judge is a more junior judge who occasionally sits as a High Court judge.) However, this particular person was involved in Nuremberg and other post-WWII war crimes trials (albeit in a junior capacity, like Anthony Marreco, who I also wrote up recently - I have no idea how many people were involved in the British delegation). He was also involved in detention without trial in Northern Ireland, a member of the Parole Board Appeals Tribunal and a member of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. Just about enough, I would say, otherwise I would not have bothered. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per ALoan, and thanks for that useful discussion of the issues. David | Talk 13:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, clearly notable. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There's tons of stuff much more deserving of deletion. Williamb 02:35, 25 July 2006 (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.