Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nigel Peters
A lawyer who has received an appointment that indicates pre-eminence within the profession, such as Queen's Counsel, shall be treated in the same manner as a person who satisfies criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO. However  states: ''"meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included"''. There are over 2,800 QCs currently in the UK and most do not receive specific coverage about themselves, rather they receive a passing mention in the media such as "XYZ QC defending ABC said during the trial...". There are also over 600 Circuit judges in England and Wales and again most only receive passing mentions in the press. At least 6 QC biographies were recently deleted as a result of an AFD debate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Simon_Browne_%28barrister%29 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Charles_Sherrard_%28barrister%29 2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nicholas_Rhodes_%28barrister%29 3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Christopher_Stoner 4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Antony_Chinn 5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Peter_Bowsher 6). A batch of District judge and Circuit judge articles were also deleted. Are you saying these articles shouldn't have been deleted? Should their deletion be reversed? It seems too inconsistent to have 6 recent QC bios were everyone voted to delete, and now you're all suggesting to keep. I respect your opinions as members of the community, but I find it a bit frustrating that AFD is proving inconsistent. I only nominated this one because the previous 6 QCs were delete with unanimous approval
— User:Uhooep, 18:46, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:BIO (Wikipedia:Notability)