Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Padfield
- 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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Nicholas Padfield[edit]
- Nicholas Padfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG and violates WP:NOTNEWS. Launchballer 20:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. A senior QC, deputy High Court judge and bencher of the Inner Temple with an entry in Who's Who. He also played hockey for England. Just about scrapes by in my opinion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- If you have a copy of the book, could you add a page number?--Launchballer 17:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- Surprisingly enough, it's in alphabetical order! What on earth would be the use of a page number? Any decent British library has online access in any case, so page numbers are irrelevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- If you have a copy of the book, could you add a page number?--Launchballer 17:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - I fail to see anything that is significantly notable. One reference is an unreliable "Who's Who" and the other is merely an article about an alleged unrealized offer to purchase a football club.--Rpclod (talk) 02:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- No, Who's Who is certainly not unreliable. I fear you are confusing the genuine WW with the vanity knock-offs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- It seems obvious to me that Rpclod was using "Who's Who" as (and I hope I'm not going to get this wrong) a noun rather than a proper noun.--Launchballer 16:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Nope, I have absolutely no idea what you mean. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Regardless, the article does not indicate sufficient notability to warrant keeping. I continue to vote Delete.--Rpclod (talk) 18:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- It seems obvious to me that Rpclod was using "Who's Who" as (and I hope I'm not going to get this wrong) a noun rather than a proper noun.--Launchballer 16:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Question - What does it mean "he played hockey for England"? If the article stays, I think that needs to be explained for American audiences. Bali88 (talk) 04:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- What's the confusion? If he played soccer for the United States (as a number of people just have done in the World Cup) surely that wouldn't be confusing? -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- There are so many different sporting events and things that Americans don't phrase things like that. If an American played in the world cup this year, we would say "He played soccer on the American team in the 2014 World Cup" to specify the event. How do we know it's the world cup and not the Olympics? In this instance, I had no idea there was any sort of world wide hockey tournament aside from the Olympics and in that case, I'd say "He played hockey for the American Olympic team in 1996". What type of hockey tournament did England compete in? Hockey isn't really that big over here. Also, is it ice hockey or field hockey? Bali88 (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- Field hockey. Follow the blue link. Since it's written in British English and we don't generally use the term field hockey: "hockey" to us means field hockey. If we mean ice hockey we say ice hockey, but ice hockey hasn't traditionally been terribly popular in England. Not everything on Wikipedia has to be written for consumption by Americans, just as articles on American subjects don't have to be written for consumption by non-Americans. "Played for England" just means be played at least one hockey match for England against a foreign country. Most likely in friendly matches and not a specific tournament. That's what we countries that play sports that other countries play too do all the time! It's probably confusing for Americans because you tend to play home-grown sports that aren't played by many other countries! But most people outside North America would understand that sentence perfectly. That's how we phrase it, so under WP:ENGVAR that's perfectly acceptable (indeed, it's expected) on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- I tend to agree that articles should cater to the country they are written about, although personally, I would put it in parentheses if there is some additional information that would useful to people in another English speaking area, but I should clarify: this is possibly the only thing that could qualify as notable. Not being English, I really have no idea how big a deal this is in England and that makes it tough for American wikipedians to vote on this AFD. In America, just being on a national team probably wouldn't be enough. Being a key member on a team that won a world championship might count. If he got a ton of publicity for being on this team might count. Like I said, we have a ton of different leagues that play internationally and most of them are not notable so it's tough for American wikipedians to understand why "playing hockey for England" is anything to write home about. Is there a wikipedia page that we could link to that talks about the international hockey tournament he played in? That might help. Also, the who's who book...I'm not sure that qualifies either, but again, I have no idea how famous the people in these books are or how notable these people are considered in England. It wouldn't be of much interest in America, so I'm not entirely sure what to do with that. If you can provide any more details about the notability of these two things that might help with this AFD. Bali88 (talk) 18:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- Field hockey. Follow the blue link. Since it's written in British English and we don't generally use the term field hockey: "hockey" to us means field hockey. If we mean ice hockey we say ice hockey, but ice hockey hasn't traditionally been terribly popular in England. Not everything on Wikipedia has to be written for consumption by Americans, just as articles on American subjects don't have to be written for consumption by non-Americans. "Played for England" just means be played at least one hockey match for England against a foreign country. Most likely in friendly matches and not a specific tournament. That's what we countries that play sports that other countries play too do all the time! It's probably confusing for Americans because you tend to play home-grown sports that aren't played by many other countries! But most people outside North America would understand that sentence perfectly. That's how we phrase it, so under WP:ENGVAR that's perfectly acceptable (indeed, it's expected) on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- There are so many different sporting events and things that Americans don't phrase things like that. If an American played in the world cup this year, we would say "He played soccer on the American team in the 2014 World Cup" to specify the event. How do we know it's the world cup and not the Olympics? In this instance, I had no idea there was any sort of world wide hockey tournament aside from the Olympics and in that case, I'd say "He played hockey for the American Olympic team in 1996". What type of hockey tournament did England compete in? Hockey isn't really that big over here. Also, is it ice hockey or field hockey? Bali88 (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - represented country internationally, QC and Bencher, surprised at nom. DuncanHill (talk) 21:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- Comment - Okay, so I've asked around and people seem to be across the board impressed by the hockey thing, but everything else in the article, opinions seem to vary. I would suggest that the article should be written like "Nicholas Padfield is a former hockey play who was on the national team in 1986" if that is the thing that makes him notable. Currently, the hockey thing is a sidenote. Secondly, I'm unsure if being in Who's who is notable or not, but if that's the thing that makes him notable, it also should be noted in the article as opposed to simply being used as a reference. Also, I'm not sure that that book can be used as a source for anything aside from the fact that he is in the book as well as minor biographical information. Currently almost the entire article is sourced to the Who's who entry, but the wikipedia entry for Who's who (UK) mentions that the entries are self-written, so it would be the same as citing someone's personal website. If reliable sources can be presented for him, I'm willing to vote to keep. Bali88 (talk) 21:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- No, he's notable for being a senior QC and judge. That's why he's got a WW entry, not because he played hockey! Playing hockey for England is just an added bit of notability. WW entries are self-written, but they are checked and edited and one has to be pretty prominent to be invited to be in WW in the first place. It's not a vanity publication and you don't pay to be in it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - I'd incline to regarding all QCs and all national-level sportspeople as notable, and he's been both. Who's Who (UK) is a good reliable corroboration, but getting in is not an achievement in itself. It's his sporting and legal achievements that are the basis of his notability. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- Per the article on QC, in 2006, 175 out of 443 who applied to be considered QC were selected. This does not seem to be very selective and not qualification for notability. The "bencher" selection may be more notable, but nothing indicates that this meets WP:GNG requirements. Nothing in the article indicates what "playing hockey for England" actually means. I realize the sport that is referenced, but "for England" should be considered insignificant without further explanation.--Rpclod (talk) 06:32, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
- I suspect there is a very strong pre-selection (and self-selection) of potential candidates. The current application fee is around UKP 2000, and if you are appointed, there is a further fee of ~UKP 3000, plus the actual cost of the Letters Patent . According to [1], fees were even higher in the past. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
- So, one can buy notability? I remain surprised that one can be selected for being a good lawyer and decent athlete, without having accomplished anything particular other than that.--Rpclod (talk) 11:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
- I don't understand your comment, and I suspect you don't understand the process. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with rpclodl that the notability of this particular guy is not as obvious as I'd like. If being on QC is super elite, that should be noted in the article, exactly how and why that is a special thing. A group of 175 people likely wouldn't cut it in America unless there was a respectable amount of news coverage. Similarly, the "played for England", that's way more vague than I prefer. The article should at least give the year he played. Also, Stephan, I think the part about the cost of being in QC is what is throwing him for a loop. Having money is not a qualification for notability so it's hard to see how that's relevant. Bali88 (talk) 16:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
- I think you miss the point about the fee. Rpclod claimed that the process is not selective (because 1/3rd of the applicants make it) and maybe also that one can buy ones way into QC. But that's not how English society works. If you are generally considered "ripe for QC", you and your peers will know this. The fee is not a buy-in, it just helps uphold the exclusivity of the process by keeping people without enough gravitas from applying in vain, or on the off-chance of slipping in under the radar. I'd say that under that circumstances, 30% is quite selective. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not under the impression that you buy your way in. I'm just saying your explanation of why it's selective isn't helped by saying "it's expensive". I'd prefer some reliable resources on this. I don't really care either way if his article is kept or tossed, but the fact is that this guy hasn't really gotten that much press coverage. If QC is really that big a deal, I think we can substitute sources saying that IT is a big deal for sources saying HE is a big deal. But the cost thing doesn't prove QC is notable. Bali88 (talk) 18:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- Bali, read our article Queen's Counsel, and the QC appointments website. Being a QC is a big deal in legal circles. We don't need to explain in an article about a QC why being a QC is a big deal - anyone who knows anything about the law will know! DuncanHill (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not under the impression that you buy your way in. I'm just saying your explanation of why it's selective isn't helped by saying "it's expensive". I'd prefer some reliable resources on this. I don't really care either way if his article is kept or tossed, but the fact is that this guy hasn't really gotten that much press coverage. If QC is really that big a deal, I think we can substitute sources saying that IT is a big deal for sources saying HE is a big deal. But the cost thing doesn't prove QC is notable. Bali88 (talk) 18:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- I think you miss the point about the fee. Rpclod claimed that the process is not selective (because 1/3rd of the applicants make it) and maybe also that one can buy ones way into QC. But that's not how English society works. If you are generally considered "ripe for QC", you and your peers will know this. The fee is not a buy-in, it just helps uphold the exclusivity of the process by keeping people without enough gravitas from applying in vain, or on the off-chance of slipping in under the radar. I'd say that under that circumstances, 30% is quite selective. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with rpclodl that the notability of this particular guy is not as obvious as I'd like. If being on QC is super elite, that should be noted in the article, exactly how and why that is a special thing. A group of 175 people likely wouldn't cut it in America unless there was a respectable amount of news coverage. Similarly, the "played for England", that's way more vague than I prefer. The article should at least give the year he played. Also, Stephan, I think the part about the cost of being in QC is what is throwing him for a loop. Having money is not a qualification for notability so it's hard to see how that's relevant. Bali88 (talk) 16:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
- I don't understand your comment, and I suspect you don't understand the process. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
- So, one can buy notability? I remain surprised that one can be selected for being a good lawyer and decent athlete, without having accomplished anything particular other than that.--Rpclod (talk) 11:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
- I suspect there is a very strong pre-selection (and self-selection) of potential candidates. The current application fee is around UKP 2000, and if you are appointed, there is a further fee of ~UKP 3000, plus the actual cost of the Letters Patent . According to [1], fees were even higher in the past. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
- Per the article on QC, in 2006, 175 out of 443 who applied to be considered QC were selected. This does not seem to be very selective and not qualification for notability. The "bencher" selection may be more notable, but nothing indicates that this meets WP:GNG requirements. Nothing in the article indicates what "playing hockey for England" actually means. I realize the sport that is referenced, but "for England" should be considered insignificant without further explanation.--Rpclod (talk) 06:32, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. If a topic has an article in a sufficiently highly regarded encyclopedia, biographical dictionary or similarly organised work of reference, that is sufficient evidence that that topic is notable. A & C Black's Who's Who is a publication that falls into that category. It has a reputation for only including people who are worthy of notice. Whilst we have not gotten round to writing a subject notability guideline for this yet (though one of them does have inclusion at reasonable length in standard works of reference as a criteria), I think that most editors would accept that inclusion via a dedicated article in this type of publication creates a presumption of notability. James500 (talk) 03:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- 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.