Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Hayes (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 no consensus. Sandstein 06:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Hayes (lawyer)[edit]

[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 notability of Peter Hayes rests on the allegation that he, a leading Australian lawyer, died of a drug overdose in the company of prostitutes. Since his death in 2007, there appear to have been no reports of the coronial inquest or the police investigations that the article mentions. There has been no confirmation of the allegation. The story has died. In any case, the allegation is not notable by Wikipedia standards. It is salacious gossip, whether true or not. The article implies that the women who were with Hayes committed a crime, but there is no evidence that they have been convicted of anything. With regard to Hayes, a lot of people use illegal drugs and hire prostitutes. There is really no point in this article, except as a memory of a scandal a decade ago. Jack Upland (talk) 09:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - to sum up this long nomination, the subject fails WP:NBIO due to their notability being from only one event. WP:TABLOID applies. Kirbanzo (talk) 09:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:46, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weakish keep This one is a bit tricky. Yes the subject did receive very significant one off coverage due to the alleged nature of their death, but the reason they received that coverage was because they were a very high profile legal professional over a period of time, which can be variously, even if routinely, sourced. Anyone else (sadly perhaps) might have received nothing or a few very small one off passing mentions upon such a death. I suggest that the combination of their professional profile and the nature of their death satisfies GNG with sufficient WP:NEXIST when combined. The article, like many others, could do with some work, but unless fatally flawed, is not grounds for deletion Aoziwe (talk) 06:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:10, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the last comment, I don't think that everyone who dies of a drug overdose should have an article.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:29, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. I suggest though the combination of circumstances makes this person notable. Aoziwe (talk) 04:26, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep read Peter Hayes QC as practicing lawyer that is the highest level attainable his links to high profile cases just reinforces notability, WP:UNDUE is an issue in focusing on the events around his passing and more effort could be made to improve information on case/court work there again you dont get to QC by being a ambulance chaser, divorce lawyer or writing wills. Gnan garra 14:25, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:17, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are a thousand QCs or "Senior Counsels" in Australia. Every one does not need an article, particularly if there is little information available.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:34, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As Queen's Counsel, he satisfies criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO. The honour is well known, and it is significant because it indicates "pre-eminence in the profession" (Final Report of the Royal Commission on Legal Services, Cmnd 7648, October 1979, volume 1, para 33.69 at page 466). The arguments for deletion above are utter nonsense from start to finish. James500 (talk) 18:45, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think appointment as a QC is an "award or honour" in terms of WP:ANYBIO. It is not like a Victoria Cross, Oscar, or Nobel Prize, where the recipient is recognised for a particular achievement that is notable in itself. You could write an article simply based on the fact that someone won a VC etc, but I don't think the bare fact of being appointed a QC. While it shows the person is a pre-eminent barrister, it's not notable in itself. If that criteria did apply, it would mean that people nominated several times to be QC are notable, including those who nominate themselves! That report (which by the way is decades old and from another country) makes it clear that QC is a professional appointment. While much of the traditional role is obsolete, taking silk is still seen as a career advancement, with the QC being distinguished from the junior barrister. A career advancement is not an "award or honour" notable in this context. WP:JUDGE seems to be the closest to a notability criteria for the legal profession. This states that judicial officers on the local level do not have guaranteed notability. This suggests that no lawyer below the rank of judge has guaranteed notability. This argument was also discussed a few days ago. If true, it goes beyond this article. If all QCs are notable, then this should be documented. And there should be a corresponding provision for jurisdictions, like the USA, that don't have QCs.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:37, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being appointed Queen's Counsel is certainly an honour. It is even possible for a non-practitioner (such as a professor) to be appointed honoris causa. In any event, there is no value in semantic hair-splitting about the distinction between honours and appointments. What matters is that QC is well known and significant honour because it indicates pre-eminence. It is primarily awarded when an advocate attains the highest standard of court advocacy (so it is awarded for a particular achievement that is notable in of itself), and indicates that the QCs so honoured are the top people in their field and the best at what they do. (The Nobel Prize is not awarded for a particular achievement, it is awarded for lifetime 'achievement'). A person cannot be "nominated" to be a QC, so that is not an issue. The section of BIO, known as JUDGE and POLITICIAN, that deals with politicians and judges, is about the holders of political office, and is primarily aimed at elected judges in the USA, who are certainly politicians (and have to persuade the public to vote for them). It has nothing to do with lawyers who are not politicians just because they are lawyers. In many countries, such as Germany and France, judges are not part of the legal profession, but form a completely separate profession. Even in England, some judges (lay magistrates) are not members of the legal profession (or any other profession) and have no legal qualifications. The fact that the USA does not have QCs is irrelevant. There is nothing in ANYBIO that suggests that awards have to be international. We cannot ignore notable honours conferred by national honour systems just because one country doesn't have them. All that means is that we will have to find alternative means for assessing the notability of American lawyers. This is certainly possible. As far as the relevant Commonwealth countries are concerned, the honour of QC is the only practical means of identifying by honours and awards those lawyers who are notable for their practice as lawyers in the courts (and not for being judges or law professors or whatever). The honour of QC is quite simply the only option (there are no other awards or honours now that can be used), so it has to be used for this purpose. QCs are automatically included in certain biographical dictionaries of notable people, which proves that professional biographers consider QCs to be ipso facto notable. James500 (talk) 06:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in some jurisdictions, there are nominations for QCs.[1] In Victoria, Australia, barristers apply to be QCs (or Senior Counsels).[2] There are many things which are "honours" and which indicate "pre-eminence", but as I said I don't think a QC is an "award or honour" in terms of ANYBIO.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Application is not nomination. QC is manifestly an honour. James500 (talk) 07:38, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is an "honour", but not an "award or honour" in terms of the criteria. It is essentially a career qualification, even if it is given in an "honorary" way to a few people outside the legal profession. It is not similar to the awards and honours envisaged in the criteria. A Nobel Prize might be an award for lifetime achievement, but it is awarded in a particular field, for particular achievements. You can win many Oscars, but when you are appointed a QC in a particular jurisdiction, that's it. You are not going to be "awarded" it again the next year.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:00, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a career qualification. It is entirely similar to the other awards and honours envisaged by the criteria. It is awarded in a particular field for particular achievements (namely the highest standard of court advocacy). There is no reason why ANYBIO should be confined to awards and honours that can only be given once. We have always accepted that a knighthood satisfies ANYBIO, and that can only be given once. James500 (talk) 02:26, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is similar to a knighthood, in that it is archaic and no longer means what it used to mean. However, a knighthood is now an "honour" and recipients are knighted for contributions to business, the arts etc. It is no longer really an appointment, and there is no requirement for fighting. However, a QC is expected to act as one of the elite of the legal profession. It is absolutely a matter of career advancement and professional attainment. A knighthood is not (any more).--Jack Upland (talk) 08:35, 25 October 2018 (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.