Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Kee (lawyer)

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Kee (lawyer)

[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)

The role does not seem significant enough to merit mention at Human Rights Commission (New Zealand), where Commissioners are named. I see no other route to biographic notability as it news coverage seemed to come from the appointment Star Mississippi 03:13, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Law, and New Zealand. Star Mississippi 03:13, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't find sources demonstrating that he meets WP:GNG, WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO from a WP:BEFORE search. Looks like he's been a Tenancy Tribunal adjudicator in recent years, which is a fairly low-level judicial appointment (the tribunal doesn't even have a Wikipedia page; arguably it should, but kind of demonstrates that the role doesn't add anything to notability). The press around his appointment to an HRC role (and not even the top role!) was mainly about the fact that he was appointed instead of a woman lawyer recommended by officials.

Also seems the article creator was blocked for sockpuppeting during which they created several articles about non-notable alumni from St Peter's College... Chocmilk03 (talk) 04:39, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. The association with St Peter's College also struck me. We had another editor who mass-produced bios for non-notable St Peter's College alumni and that was a different editor to this article's creator (or any of their socks). We should go through the contributions and PROD other bios, too. Schwede 66 17:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not 100% convinced the "other editor" is not a sock, it's too much of a coincidence that there are 2 different St Peter's College promoters with the second account starting shortly after the first was blocked. I agree that there are bound to be many more articles of similar non-notability to this one created by both accounts. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Schwede66, I do believe you may have erred here. Rick570 created a lot of St Peter's cruft articles that were deleted here and went on to sock with Dome1000, Jam6700, Emendment and Yelsorc. If there is another could you please enlighten us as to who so we can check their contributions. Thanks. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:59, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only non press release is single about how a politician gave a mate a high paid job over the recommended candidate. Not enough for a BLP. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:02, 21 December 2023 (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.