|
- Yvonne Bradley (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)
A deletion review of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yvonne Bradley has been requested for the following reason(s):
- the closing admin Fritzpoll might have closed the discussion a little prematurely;
- there was not a clear consensus to delete and redirect; and,
- additional evidence is available on Yvonne Bradley's notability (eg the article she wrote for New Statesman magazine and Bradley's role in uncovering telegrams which point to MI5 'collusion' in the interrogation of Binyam Mohammed).
Also, Yvonne Bradley was mentioned in today's Prime Minister's Questions when Leader of the Opposition, David Cameron, called for a judicial inquiry into her revelations of MI5 'collusion' in the interrogation of Binyam Mohammed.
Bradley might not be especially notable in the States but on this side of the pond she's a star!---PJHaseldine (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you demonstrate that the discussion was closed prematurely, in that there were insufficient opinions expressed to establish consensus? Since you are the creator of this article, I understand that you might be unhappy at the outcome. The evaluation of consensus by an administrator is not a head-counting exercise, it is also an evaluation of the relative strength of the arguments. The arguments in the discussion by those who favoured retention largely fell into the category of WP:ITSNOTABLE - no justification was given as to how the individual satisfied WP:BIO in light of the WP:ONEEVENT clause of our living persons policy, that the deletion guidelines for administrators require me to evaluate in cases like these. Given this, there was suggestion of recourse to the general notability guidelines for notability, but such arguments did not indicate how this article was able to overrule the notability exemptions within the general guideline. This is not my opinion - I do not apply my opinions to closes - but was the valid point suggested by those favouring deletion. On the balance of arguments, therefore, there was (in my analysis) a consensus for deletion. The redirect was a courtesy for usability.
- As regards undeletion, there is a small problem. I have moved the entire deleted history of the article to Geo Swan's subpage. He assured me that he could make an unambiguously notable entry, which can then be returned to article space. My strong suggestion to you is to focus your efforts on improving this userspace article to the point where it demonstrates her notability beyond this single event. Provided it is not substantially similar to the deleted copy, you can then safely overwrite the redirect at the article page - but you'll need an admin to do it for WP:GFDL reasons. If there are additional sources, then the article may be able to demonstrate notability, in which case there is nothing for a deletion review to do.
- Finally, in the interests of disclosure, and not that it matters, but I am a British citizen, and I live in England - I have no systematic bias, as I fear you may believe from your latter statement. Fritzpoll (talk) 23:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your essay is wrong. According to WP:DGFA: Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted.. It isn't just about discounting sockpuppets and the like - there is a judgement call to be made. Otherwise we'd just count up the votes - the community is meant to appoint admins on the basis that they trust their judgement - if you want this changed, this is the wrong forum Fritzpoll (talk) 08:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My essay is perfectly correct: closers are supposed to implement the consensus, or if there's no consensus, close it as no consensus. The only judgment involved is deciding what the consensus is. In this case, the closer has mistakenly assessed as "delete" a discussion that was clearly not a consensus.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 08:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and I closed according to what I percieved was a consensus. Can you be more explicit as to how you feel I made a mistake, based on my commentary at the top of this AfD? Fritzpoll (talk) 09:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I could, but it looks like I'm wasting my time, so I won't bother.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongly endorse closure. The decision was correct. No one has presented a single policy-based reason for keeping the article, and no one has presented a single policy-based reason for overturning the deletion. AFD closures are not supposed to count noses or the WP:ILIKEIT votes. There were no sources about Yvonne Bradley, who was one of several underling lawyers on a case, and whose role in the case was covered by half of a sentence in her client's article. Haseldine continues to WP:PUFF this subject; he hasn't shown anything that changes Bradley's lack of notability: he cites to one primary source written by the subject (and even there the host's URL title is telling: "Binyam Mohamed's lawyer" rather than "Yvonne Bradley"); and half of a sentence in a BBC article that does not support any claim that Bradley had any role in the revelation of MI5 telegrams, contrary to Haseldine's false claim to the contrary. How does adding the sentences "According to Mohamed's current lawyers, Bradley showed him some telegrams" and "Bradley wrote a 750-word article about her client" improve the article from Delete to Keep? I further note that Haseldine has already been disruptive with this article, including trying to overturn the deletion surreptitiously with edits like: [1] and [2]. THF (talk) 09:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am going to repeat a fundamental flaw I noticed in your original nomination, which you repeat here in this DRV. Nominating articles on notable topics due to perceived weaknesses in the current state of the article is counter-policy. If the topic itself merits coverage, but the article has problems, the recommended procedure is to state your concerns: state them on the talk page; apply a tag; or contact the contributor whose contributions triggered your concern. Policy recommends those with a concern over the article, rather than the topic, take these steps first, and reserve {{afd}} for a last resort, when these steps fail to bring an improvement. Most of your stated concerns are about the current state of the article. Maybe you did a good faith web search, so you could independently reach a conclusion as to the merits of the topic. But there is nothing in what you have written to indicate you did so. Geo Swan (talk) 19:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I resent this repeated allegation of bad-faith nomination, which you know damn well not to be true. I systematically researched over 25 articles in the category that were alphabetized (often incorrectly) in the A-through-E range, nominated about half of them where there was nothing beyond the occasional passing quote or primary source available to every lawyer, tagged another eight or nine that looked like they could be salvaged, and left the others alone because they were passable. I even held off looking at other articles at your request so you could "userfy" and improve them, but if we're going to have bad-faith DRV lobbying and bad-faith accusations of bad faith instead of efforts to get articles up to par, I'm not sure why I am doing you the favor of avoiding nominating the other four dozen or so articles that flunk WP:BIO. THF (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Not for the first time THF completely misrepresents Yvonne Bradley's role. The cited BBC article actually states: "The legal organisation Reprieve, which represents Mr Mohamed, said its client was shown the telegrams in Guantanamo Bay by his military lawyer Lieutenant Col Yvonne Bradley." It is clear from the BBC article that her role in uncovering the alleged MI5 collusion in the interrogation of Mohamed has been crucial. And her revelation has not only prompted calls by Shadow Justice Secretary Dominic Grieve for a judicial inquiry into the allegations and by Shami Chakrabarti of Liberty for the matter to be referred to the police but, as stated above, she was mentioned at yesterday's Prime Minister's Question Time. You can't get more notable than that!---PJHaseldine (talk) 13:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you even read the language you just copied and pasted before making a false accusation against me? How is "The legal organisation Reprieve, which represents Mr Mohamed, said its client was shown the telegrams in Guantanamo Bay by his military lawyer Lieutenant Col Yvonne Bradley." substantively different from "According to Mohamed's current lawyers, Bradley showed him some telegrams"? How is that a "critical role"? As for "You can't get more notable than that", well that's self-parody. THF (talk) 14:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The obvious difference is that the BBC specified that these telegrams had revealed MI5 'collusion' and were not just "some" telegrams.---PJHaseldine (talk) 16:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but the article doesn't say that Bradley had any role in the telegrams (which don't actually appear to show any wrongdoing, but WP:NOT#CHAT) beyond showing them to her client. THF (talk) 16:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but. No, but. It's OK, THF, you can have the last word.---PJHaseldine (talk) 18:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (1) Let's not split hairs about a close that is around 1.5 hours early. That could simply be the result of a time zone difference. (2) If I had closed I would've discounted the votes by JRP and Unionsoap for using invalid arguments. PJHaseldine's comments are borderline, since they assume meeting notable people confers notability and that being interviewed does as well (without going into the details of why they were interviewed. The combined assessments of TJRC and Freerangefrog and THF all supported coverage in context and in part this also supported keep arguments since it allows for her to still be covered. So I see no reason for the closing admin to do it any different than I would do it. - Mgm|(talk) 09:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn After the checking the page logs, it appears the closing admin first closed the debate as a redirect and later speedied the redirect as a G6. This meant that any history for a future merge of more material was lost (before he finally decided to userfy the history). Closing something as a redirect to an article where the subject is discussed in context so readers can find it is a fine close; deleting the resulting redirect outside your own decided close of a debate isn't. - Mgm|(talk) 09:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The deletion of the redirect took place because I was moving the material to a user-subpage for Geo Swan to work on per a request to my talk page. To preserve the history, and given his promise to bring it up to scratch, I thought this was the best way round. The redirect had to be deleted for me to get at the history - you'll notice I restored the redirect shortly afterwards Fritzpoll (talk) 09:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks again for doing so. My preference remains to take further time to make the enhancements we discussed, and then ask you if you agree that the article can be restored to article space. Geo Swan (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll shut up. I'm not awake enough to properly address this without messing up again. - Mgm|(talk) 09:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse AFD lasted the required time and close was a compromise close within discretion. History can be restored on request under the redirect as per the usual protocol. MBisanz talk 09:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse AfD closed after reasonable time with a reasonable conclusion by the admin. The WP:BLP1E concern was never refuted and keep claims were based in "you are wrong" and "is notable" mentality. While I acknowledge that "not inherited" is an arguement to avoid, it is worthwhile to note that the subjects notability is entirely dependent on Benyam Mohammed and the associated trial. When the discussion on the subject in that article either strays from associated context or becomes a weight problem, this article should be recreated. "She's a star" is not an inclusion criteria in wikipedia, if it was, my niece would totally have an article. [[::User:Usrnme h8er|Usrnme h8er]] ([[::User talk:Usrnme h8er|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Usrnme h8er|contribs]]) 10:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment. "Inherited" is an argument to avoid. "Not inherited" is a legitimate interpretation of the guideline. THF (talk) 10:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed you're right. The phrasing confused me on AADD (not notable is not inherited either). My bad. I still don't really like it because notability can, of course, be inherited. It just doesn't confer notability in its own right. [[::User:Usrnme h8er|Usrnme h8er]] ([[::User talk:Usrnme h8er|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Usrnme h8er|contribs]]) 11:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Two 'noes' also now notified.---PJHaseldine (talk) 16:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Redirect: Article seems like a rather thin coat to me; individual, out-of-context notability wasn't asserted. AFD process was followed well and redirect was mentioned as nom's original intention. Only one Keep !vote gave good supporting comments, and even that succumbed to a contextual slant. onebravemonkey 14:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse While arguments ("This lawyer is notable...", "Uh, it doesn't get any better than this for WP:BIO...") were made in favor of keep they did not really explain the basis of their arguments. Good closure. The section it was redirected to seems to cover the facts anyways. Chillum 14:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to no consensus,' which is the actual state of the matter. Consensus is determined not by counting heads in a mechanical sense, but by what amounts to the process of counting the support of sensible people. Very few people participated in the AfD--fewer than are participating in this review. I didn't myself, because I was overwhelmed by the flood of afds of articles on lawyers--if one prefers, one could word it as us all being overwhelmed by the flood of articles on lawyers. Most of them are--quite reasonably-- now redirected or merged by the people writing them, and we can reconsider the more notable, and she is among the more notable. But even if we do not overturn, i expect Geo swan will improve the article enough that it becomes acceptable. You know, this is all going to look very silly a few years from now, when everyone involved has written books and they all become historically notable, for their work in destroying or attempting to rescue the reputation of a nation. DGG (talk) 14:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When they have books written about them and they become historically notable then they will certainly have an article. I won't feel silly for waiting either. As before I support Geo and others bringing the article up to standards, I gave a keep opinion on the MfD for the userfied version of this article. Chillum 14:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure Closure was not premature. Of the three editors suggesting "Keep" only one, PJHaseltine, gave any reasons, and those concerns were addressed. PJHaseltine was not swayed by the argument, which is understandable, seeing as he is the article's creator, but that's to be expected. The point is that his arguments, and those against them, received a fair airing. The other two "Keep" suggestions gave only conclusory statements, with no basis for them: "Uh, it doesn't get any better than this for WP:BIO"; and "This lawyer is notable". In contrast, each of the three editors suggesting "Delete" provided bases for their positions. If this were an election, we wouldn't look at anything but the numbers; but it's not. With only the article's creator giving any reasoned basis for keeping, which was fully addressed, closure was appropriate. TJRC (talk) 15:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When there have been no comments for more than a day and a half, a few hours don't matter. WP:BLP1E policy, and WP:BIO1E would both lead to a conclusion that we should not have an article - making FreeRangeFrog's argument contradict the support he claimed for it, and of zero to negative weight. Before the relevant AFD started content about Bradley was already in the appropriate merge target. So merging would not have been useful. Accordingly, endorse closure based on the strength of the arguments. I am aware that there is a userfied version, and if biographic sources about her appear we can consider again at that time - the "new evidence" above is not biographic sources, it is more evidence that BLP1E and BIO1E apply and that we should not have an article. GRBerry 17:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The comment immediately above seems to say no subject can have an article about them, that only covers their notable activities, when that article doesn't also include biographical material. By biographical material I assume GRBerry means details of the subject's birth, education, and career prior to and after their notable activities. This doesn't make sense to me. For some individuals who merit coverage those kinds of details may not be available. False Geber being an archetypical example of a very notable individual whose birth and education we know nothing about. I have encountered the argument that articles about individuals have to include details about the course of their lives. I wrote an essay in response: "False Geber" and what a biography should contain. When I wrote this essay we didn't even know, or have any meaningful guesses as to False Geber's name. FWIW I believe that the biographical details GRBerry asks for would be classified as "puffery" by THF's essay WP:PUFF. Geo Swan (talk) 19:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- Geo Swan here -- the article was userified to my user space.
- While I personally believe that the topic Yvonne Bradley merits coverage I thought it made sense to more fully incorporate the additional references I told the closing administrator about (...some of which are collected here...) into the article prior to considering moving it back to article space. Although I didn't agree with the closing administrator's conclusion I thought the approach that would be least likely to trigger controversy would be to incorporate more material into the article, and ask the closing administrator if they agreed that the article, with the enhancements could be restored to article space. This approach would also have saved the time and energy of everyone who has participated here. This remains my preferred choice, but I am going to offer arguments that this article belongs in article space, and that there were flaws in the nomination, because, if this DRV endorses the closure, and I then enhance the article, and the closing administrator authorizes restoration to article space, or there is a second DRV, I don't want anyone to question why I didn't advance arguments for the article's inclusion during its (first) DRV.
- FWIW, I was not aware of the original {{afd}}.
- My understanding of deletion policy is that if the closing administrator is satisfied that if a userified article has been sufficiently improved they can authorize its restoration to article space, without consuming the resources through a DRV.
- My understanding of the deletion policy is that those weighing in at a deletion discussion should base their opinion on whether the topic merits coverage -- not on the state of the current article.
- I have only participated in a few DRVs. In my first the discussion focused around whether a procedural error had been made. And when that disputed {{prod}} was overturned the administrator who closed the DRV promptly nominated the restored article for a full {{afd}}. I thought this meant that DRV was solely for reviewing whether {{afd}} had been conducted according to policy -- not to replay the discussion of the pros and cons whether the article merited inclusion. However subsequent DRV I have participated in have focused on the pros and cons of whether the article merited inclusion. So I am going to address both the procedural issues, and the merits of covering the topic.
- I watch the BBC news at 6, and it provided extensive coverage of Ms Bradley, in the month or so preceding the recent release of her client back to the UK. She met with the Foreign Minister, and this was widely covered and discussed. I think that makes her notable.
- Back in 2006 Ms Bradley faced a daunting catch-22. Binyam Mohammed didn't want the assistance of any US military lawyers. Yet she had been ordered to represent him, without regard to his wishes. If she obeyed orders she could lose her liscense to practice law. If she disobeyed her orders to represent him she faced contempt charges. This was extensively covered back in 2006. And some of this coverage focussed on Bradley -- not on her client or his military commission. I believe this establishes that WP:BLP1E does not apply.
- FWIW I think the original nomination contained serious factual errors. They are, in order:
- As above, this is not "one event";
- The nomination cites WP:PUFF, an essay, drafted by the nominator, as if it represented a wide consensus. I don't see any attempt to establish consensus over some of the controversial claims in this essay, and I am mystified as to how it came to be place in WP space, as opposed to placement in the author's user space. This concerns me.
- As above, my understanding of deletion policy is that deletion discussions should not be about the flaws in the current state of the article, but rather on the merits of covering the topic. This nomination however is largely critical of the current state of the article. I regard this as a serious procedural problem.
- The nomination claims: "Bradley wasn't even the client's lead lawyer: that was Clive Stafford Smith." Bradley was the lead military attorney, I believe that this made her, officially, the lead attorney.
- The nomination makes comments about the Bradley's clients being barely notable. So what? Think Clarence Darrow or Alan Dershowitz -- some attorneys are more notable than their clients. Whether she merits coverage should be independent of the notability, or lack thereof, of her clients.
- The nomination contain criticisms based on claims of "redundancy", which I believe show a fundamental lack of understanding of how human beings find information. While duplicating paragraphs in related paragraphs is generally a mistake, due to maintenance burden, some small measure of redundancy is important, to provide context. We rely on that context/redundancy in order for us to determine which of the links in articles we need to follow. Without the context provided by a measured amount of redundancy we would have few or no clues as to which link lead to the information we were really interested in.
- Returning to what I think is the best choice. I didn't agree with the closing administrator's conclusion, because I believe the available references show Bradley has independent notability, from multiple events. I didn't participate in the {{afd}}, so I directed some questions to the closing administrator, who agreed to userify the article for me. I would have preferred to add those additional references, then contact the closing administrator to see if they would agree to the article's restoration, and to have reserved DRV as a lsat resort if the closing adminstrator did not agree that the enhanced version merited restoration. I have placed arguments that this topic merits inclusion in the wikipedia because, if this DRV endorses the closure, and I then enhance the article, and the closing administrator authorizes restoration to article space, or there is a second DRV, I don't want anyone to question why I didn't advance arguments for the article's inclusion during its (first) DRV.
- I haven't enhanced the userified article much. I haven't had the chance, because the person who nominated the Bradley article for deletion subsequently nominated for deletion a dozen articles I started shortly after the Bradley article was userified. Responding to a an {{afd}} can be time-consuming. Geo Swan (talk) 18:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, and there is no deadline. I did try to encourage PJHaseldine to help you improve the userfied content, but he lamentably dimissed my comments, and brought it here. Let's see how it goes - I suspect we can sort this without another full-on DRV if this one endorses my close Fritzpoll (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong undelete - Undelete - Until I read Geo Swan's contribution above, I might have accepted an overturn to no consensus as the best of a bad job. However, for all the reasons he has adduced, I'm fully persuaded that the Yvonne Bradley article must be restored.---PJHaseldine (talk) 19:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They're the same basic result, so basically, your position hasn't changed at all :) Fritzpoll (talk) 19:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've strengthened my vote to counterbalance THF's extreme position.---PJHaseldine (talk) 10:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't determine or strengthen the weight of your argument by adding "strong" to it. Your position is no different, no more weighted, than it was before. ₳dam Zel 16:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If I maintain that I have strengthened my position by voting Strong undelete to counterbalance THF's Strongly endorse closure, who are you to demur?---PJHaseldine (talk) 21:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The strength of a position is based on how strong it is, i.e., based on the merits of the arguments that support it; not by how the proponent labels it. You can maintain that you've strengthened your position by mere labeling, but don't expect those assessing the consensus to give it any additional weight from its label. TJRC (talk) 22:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse having notable clients does not make their caterers, hairdressers, drivers, bankers and even lawyers notable. Being a witness or even a complaining witness to something that generate a criminal investigation also doesn't make you notable. Being a lieutenant colonel doesn't make you notable. OK, she's not notable. Nothing wrong with this close procedurally or substantively. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- After meeting with her Foreign Secretary David Milliband issued a statement that read: "I met Binyam Mohamed's US military defence counsel Lt Col Yvonne Bradley today. I wanted to hear her views personally, particularly following her recent visit to Guantanamo. We have long been concerned by reports of Mr Mohamed's medical condition, and her account underlined those concerns." I agree, we shouldn't normally have articles on caterers, hairdressers, or White House interns. But if there is a press release, like: "I did not have sex with that woman..." -- or "I met with her because I wanted to hear her views personally..." can you please explain why this doesn't raise an individual up to our notability criteria? Geo Swan (talk) 17:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That someone of import talks to a person and issues some statement about it doesn't make the person notable. We can all watch various programs where Prince Charles or Queen Elizabeth is shown listening to their subjects and expressing concern for whatever is at issue: ugly architecture, loss of family farms, lack of an export market for British beef, and I even recall someone commenting on the BBC tracking the Queen's life about the rudeness of taxi drivers, and one to Philip about how squirrels were ruining his gardens but they couldn't be shot. Do all those subjects now get articles because the Queen said she was concerned about rude taxi drivers, Charles about farm issues, and Philip's lamentation over hunting restrictions? Hardly. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Random members of the public who have conversations with public figures will turn out to be notable only in rare circumstances. I wouldn't suggest anything differently. Members of the public, chosen by the BBC, at random, to comment on some public stand of a public figure aren't going to be notable. Yvonne Bradley was not a random members of the public. She saw the Foreign Secretary by appointment. He said he wanted to "hear her views personally". He issued a statement following their meeting. And Binyam Mohammed was in fact repatriated shortly after Milliband's meeting with Bradley. I see this appointment as very different from an unscheduled meeting Milliband may have had with a random member of the public. Geo Swan (talk) 06:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I take a more cynical view, than no one's audience with the royals is random - they have likely all been vetted. None of people's gripes in these things include real issues that seem to have currency in Britain but would be embarassing for the royals to deal with random people asking about Charles' past infidelities, the Queen's immense fortune, Republicanism, the situation in Northern Ireland, and any of the religious issues tormenting the Anglican faith (of which the Queen is titular head): women bishops, gay clergy, divorce. Call my cyncial, but in all the coverage of these royal personages, not a single soul has remarked or questioned them on these issues. Random? hardly... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Without regard to whether the people Royals encounter on their walk-abouts are all pre-screened, (1) the Foreign Secretary's meeting with Bradley was by appointment -- not seemingly random; the Royals don't issue press-releases after they talk with random people -- or apparently random people. When the Royals talk with apparently ordinary people, and issue a press-release afterwards, those people probably are, arguably at least, notable. Those press-releases probably say stuff like: "Her majesty met with Nobby Clarke, who distinguished himself by rescuing...", or "Her majesty opened the Coventry homeless shelter for abandoned Corgis, and gave Nobby Clarke a personal donation of 100,000 pounds. Ms Clarke won a raffle to become the shelter's first director..." or "Her Majesty was happy to welcome Ms Ethel McGillicudy to the 100th birthday club." Or "On March 17th, 2009, while greeting well-wishers on a ropeline, Princess Anne's Corgi bit Nobby Clarke. HRH regrets the bite, and wishes Nobby a full recovery, and assures him Spot will be confined to her estate for the rest of his life." These are the kinds of individuals to whom you should be comparing Bradley, not random joes, or apparently random joes. FWIW there are incidents that demonstrate that those who meet the Royals aren't (always?) screened. There was an incident where Prince Charles toured a homeless center, and recognized one of the occupants as a former school chum, who had fallen on hard times. Geo Swan (talk) 05:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Instead of editing Binyam Mohamed#Allegations of MI5 'collusion' asking for no less than
three four clarifications, Carlossuarez46 could have simply read the cited BBC article, which answers his queries.---PJHaseldine (talk) 10:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure as it was closed within policy, after the standard duration of AFDs. ₳dam Zel 16:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Can anyone tell me why the former Yvonne Bradley article redirects to Binyam Mohamed#Release and not to Binyam Mohamed#Allegations of MI5 'collusion'?---PJHaseldine (talk) 14:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongly Endorse Closure - And no, I was not advised of this DRV. There was certainly a consensus - She's not notable. Those who opposed it did so on grounds that were unavailing. Put plainly, the subject was "notable" for representing her client, and notability is clearly not inherited. That is Wikipedia policy. The proper time was given for consideration, and the admin. made his choice based on the strength of the arguments presented, as well as those who opposed it. Further, meeting with an official to talk about one's client hardly makes one notable either as the meeting is about the client, not the barrister/lawyer/solicitor. I must also take this opportunity to gently remind PJHaseldine that voting in a DRV discussion that he nominated and wrote is not cricket. I have stricken through his vote as his position is well known at this point.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 07:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn as no consensous There wasn't any. And arguments that she's WP:JNN shouldn't be made in a closing statement. Hobit (talk) 13:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
