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. If there were copyvio issues, which I'm not seeing, I'd close differently. Writing what a source says, using quote marks and a source at the end of the quote, which I'm seeing in the article, is not a copyvio. Sections of the article which presently do not do this needs to be corrected, but for the main part it looks fine to me. Meets criterion one of WP:ANYBIO, with them receiving a significant honour (being knighted). This person is not one of such minor notability that publishing their date of birth is a privacy concern, and as it is public information presented in a reliable source is something I also took into account. All the concerns raised by the nominator have been addressed and refuted, so I'm closing this as keep with cleanup required. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Singer (judge)[edit]

Peter Singer (judge) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

I think WP:COPYVIO from Who's Who, which is listed as a reference but not inline refs. This is certainly in the style of Who's Who and certainly not in the style of Wikipedia, which prefers full sentences rather than bullet points. So calling out possibly COPYVIO, though I will do more fixup for WP:MOS etc if I am wrong. (Though if I am wrong, the original author should not have been so damned lazy .)

It also fails WP:BLP and by naming other living persons with personal information (i.e. their birthdates) also under UK law contravenes the UK Data Protection Act 1984, as amended, although of course Wikipedia is governed by California law, for the fact this man is of very little interest in the wider world I think this article better be deleted. I read the Law Reports in the Times every day, but I also read the weather forecast and do the crossword. That does not count as WP:N.

Delete with prejudice.

S. Si Trew (talk) 00:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Judges are usually notable. Knights are usually notable. This is a UPI story which establishes notability for the incident. And his work as an editor may qualify him as an author or academic. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (or, at the worst, delete and recreate without the copyvios and personal information). Lack of coverage in third-party sources is an argument for deletion, but opinions that an individual isn't of interest to other people isn't. Who's who is just about the most definitive certificate of notability you can get. Whilst there may be issues with copyvios and personal information, neither of those issues are reasons to delete the entire article. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. High Court judge and knight. Clearly notable. Just receiving a knighthood meets the criteria of WP:PEOPLE ("The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor"). The allegation that it breaches the DPA by providing birth dates is, frankly, laughable. No, it does not. Someone's date of birth is not sensitive personal information. Neither is it in any way a copyvio of Who's Who, which provides information in abbreviated list form, which this is not. To be honest, the nominator's manner ("Delete with prejudice") and incorrect allegations are making it difficult for me to assume good faith here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:43, 15 July 2011 (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.