Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Mortimer Wheeler

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. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Mortimer Wheeler

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

no apparent evidence of notability; routine career; none would be expected DGG ( talk ) 11:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The evidence of notability is in the article, isn't it? A full length obituary in a national newspaper. The other citations suggest further coverage in specialist legal sources, which I don't have access to, but I'm happy to take in good faith. – Joe (talk) 07:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be notable: the Independent obit mentioned above, also there were obits in the Daily Telegraph and The Times, he also has an entry in UK Who's Who https://doi.org/10.1093/ww/9780199540884.013.U176194 Piecesofuk (talk) 15:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obituaries in multiple national newspapers establish notability. NemesisAT (talk) 11:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I should have checked more carefully, and I'll withdraw the AfD. But I remain a little puzzled at the obit--there does not seem to have been accomplishmments to justify a full obit. DGG ( talk ) 06:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A/c our article, in 2000 there were 1072 QCs; in 2017 about 1700 [

Keep, for the reasons those who want to keep this article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A full obituary in a major national newspaper is clearly enough to establish notability and has always been held to be. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I know there is a slew of Keep votes here, but personally, I don't see it. Yes, he has some obits (and there is precedent there), but as far as I can see...as per DGG he was just a barrister and he served in ww2 - neither of those two things establish notability by themselves. There's no detail of what notable things he achieved. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can only suppose that there is some us/uk difference here--there may be some reticence in writing down something specific about a barrister. DGG ( talk ) 06:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there is certainly no inherent notability for being a barrister - every barrister doesn't get their own wikipedia. And there doesn't seem to be any information that indicates why this person, as a barrister, is notable - eg, what notable things did they do for the legal profession. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that he was a QC, not just a run-of-the-mill junior barrister. QCs are generally considered to be pretty notable people and do often get obits in national newspapers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

QCs and their counterparts SCs are not just normal barristers, they are more experienced barristers, however, there is still plenty of them, and being one doesn't make you notable enough to get your own article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A/c our article, in 2000 there were 1072 QCs; in 2017, about 1700 [1] in the UK,not counting canda , austraiia, etc. ` DGG ( talk ) 16:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to the obituaries he was more than just a barrister, eg The Times: "It was not normal for barristers of his specialisation to become High Court Judges, but, from 1972 to 1989, he sat as a Deputy High Court Judge in the Chancery Division." Piecesofuk (talk) 17:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if that can be confirmed that he was a deputy high court judge, that's definitely something of note! Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources noted above and per the nominator withdrawing the nomination. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 15:16, 23 January 2022 (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.