Deletion of Peter Hayes (lawyer)

Comment: 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  when combined.  The article, like many others, could do with some work, but unless fatally flawed, is not grounds for deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NEXIST)

Comment: As Queen's Counsel, he satisfies criteria 1 of . 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ANYBIO)

Comment: read Peter Hayes '''QC''' as practicing lawyer that is the highest level attainable his links to high profile cases just reinforces notability,  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)