Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francis Plowden

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) Kraxler (talk) 03:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Plowden

Francis Plowden (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)

WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as a member of a judicial selection committee, resting on two primary sources and one passing namecheck of his existence as a quotegiver in a BBC news article which fails to be about him — thus not sourced adequately to satisfy WP:GNG. Delete unless the sourcing can be significantly beefed up. Bearcat (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The first dozen or so words of the nomination strongly suggest that the nominator does not quite know what he is talking about in this case. The Judicial Appointments Commission is responsible for appointing most senior judges in England and, while membership of it is in itself unlikely to guarantee notability, it is the kind of body where one only becomes a member if one is already very much part of the British Establishment and likely (though not certain) not only to be notable already for something else, but continue to get more very well-paid jobs requiring relatively little work but a lot of legal responsibility for the actions of one's subordinates, with further opportunities for gaining notability. In this case, the subject seems to be somewhat self-effacing, and references to him seem to get hidden among more numerous ones to his namesake Francis Plowden (barrister) - but I suspect that someone using this CV for extra search terms and prepared to do quite a bit of searching could quite possibly find enough reliable (though possibly only moderately substantial) sources to establish notability. PWilkinson (talk) 23:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd request that you not cast aspersions on my degree of "knowing what I'm talking about". The committee is absolutely notable enough that a properly sourced article about Plowden could be kept — but it's not a role that confers any automatic entitlement to keep an article regardless of the quality of sourcing present. My nomination made clear that I'm perfectly willing to withdraw this if the sourcing can be repaired. Bearcat (talk) 17:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Satisfies GNG. Has, in particular, an article in A & C Black's Who's Who, which is conclusive proof of notability. I think he can be taken to satisfy PROF as his book "The State Under Stress" has 213 citations (ie 144 + 67 + 2) according to GScholar (on a search for "f j plowden". James500 (talk) 23:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I do think this should be moved to Francis John Plowden, his actual name, and the barrister, who seems more famous, moved to the present location of this article. James500 (talk) 04:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• If he's not known as Francis John Plowden then the article shouldn't use that as a title. This is a long-established principle of Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Who's Who calls him "Francis John Plowden", as do other sources such as a symposium from Fordham University. I am not convinced the other name is overwhelmingly more common, at least once you except official publications. IIRC, COMMONNAME states that there are other criteria for choosing an article title (such as accuracy and avoiding confusion) and that it carries no greater weight than the others. James500 (talk) 03:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• WW always uses full names. Although sometimes it parenthesises names that aren't used, more usually it does not. The guidelines actually quite clearly state that full names should not be used just for disambiguation purposes. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Not advised" implies an element of discretion and does not mean "forbidden", and even that is qualified by "not commonly" which I construe as meaning "almost never". And it says nothing about accuracy. The fact a particular source always uses full names doesn't seem to me to affect its weight. I think it preferable, unless some other name is obviously much more common, to use the full name than to carry out a potentially very difficult, if not impossible, statistical analysis of which name is used most. James500 (talk) 10:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Nothing is forbidden. This is Wikipedia. However, you will find that consensus is very much not to use middle names unless they are clearly used other than in an encyclopaedia of biography which obviously uses them. This has been decided over the course of numerous RM discussions and you will find that if you move the article it will very rapidly be moved back unless you can find sources that clearly show he is referred to by his full name in everyday usage as opposed to official usage. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. While the article doesn't say it, he was also chairman of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre and has held various other significant posts, which I think push him over the notability bar. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. He has held or holds a number of important board level positions as shown on this page and has an entry in A & C Black's Who's Who, and I believe he is notable. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:11, 30 July 2015 (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.