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 keep. Waggers (talk) 13:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harriet Spicer[edit]

Unreferenced for over two years, fails verifiability policy. Also questionable notability — being in the Judicial Appointments Commission does not convince me. Stifle (talk) 13:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I have added Francis Plowden to this list - I believe these two articles only exist to make the entire list of Judicial Appointments Commission into bluelinks. Black Kite 11:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A Google News archive search reveals notability several times over. Is it really too much to expect people to do a few seconds' basic research before nominating for deletion? Phil Bridger (talk) 12:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Harriet Spicer now has plenty of references satisfying WP:V and WP:N. I added extra references to Francis Plowden, and so he clearly passes the same policies. Tassedethe (talk) 15:06, 31 August 2008 (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.