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. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Tomasetti[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Created by a single purpose editor who also created an article on this lawyer's place of employment. The article merely confirms biographical details. The references on court cases are not indepth coverage about him. LibStar (talk) 16:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just another lawyer. Wikipedia is not a directory of run-of-the-mill lawyers. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are mentions in reliable secondary sources, but none of them are particularly significant. The strongest source is probably this , but single ten-year-pd news clip is not sufficient for a standalone biography. Also fails the additional criteria of WP:ANYBIO - no evidence of awards or honours and nothing to suggest an enduring contribution to the historical record of the law. Euryalus (talk) 11:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:JAL. ukexpat (talk) 20:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was excited there for a moment that we might have a WP:JAL page! The only real claim to significance in that field is that he is an SC. Now, that is a high career achievement for a lawyer. But I don't think it is enough to meet our notability criteria. That is evidenced by the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources (Euryalus' link is about a legal dispute; it is not detailed coverage of Mr Tomasetti). --Mkativerata (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I too was momentarily pleased by the apparent reality of JAL. Curse you, ukexpat! Euryalus (talk) 21:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My work here is done.--ukexpat (talk) 00:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - I have added details to this article that suggest the subject is notable. Only 14 % of the NSW Bar are appointed as Senior Counsel. The subject's own financial situation and the coverage of the court cases about it and their impact on legal precedent have received wide coverage. His philanthropic involvement in Indigenous literacy and his publications make him more than "just another lawyer". Castlemate (talk) 02:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

His private finances are hardly appropriate for inclusion in the article, let alone for the purposes of conferring notability. Bear in mind that the finances only became public knowledge as the result of litigation and the prurient interest of newspapers in the private finances of wealthy lawyers. We have to be really careful with this kind of thing as the subject of the article now has to live with this on a Wikipedia page (although if the article is kept I'll argue vehemently for this section of the article to be removed). He really is a run-of-the-mill lawyer, albeit quite senior within his profession. Fourteen percent of the NSW Bar is still quite a lot! --Mkativerata (talk) 07:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

yes there are WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE issues with focussing on his financial issues, that and his run of the mill legal career don't make him notable. LibStar (talk) 08:32, 9 September 2014 (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.