Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Green (lawyer)

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 delete. Article was deleted by Cirt but he forgot to close the AFD. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Green (lawyer)[edit]

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

Notability concerns, even some verifiability issues. The commonality of the name makes source-finding difficult, there are certainly lawyers in the US and Canada I was able to discover with the same name, but none from London. Additional eyes welcome, though, more than happy to withdraw if notability can be shown through significant coverage by reliable, secondary sources. Possibly a hoax, as he doesn't seem to be listed as QC [1] or [2] or [3]. Unsourced BLP for 5 1/2 years. j⚛e decker ^{talk to me} 21:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep I have tracked Brian Green down and although his description on the Wilberforce Chambers website cannot be used as a source it does establish that the article is not a hoax. Nevertheless, there are considerable problems with this Wiki entry. For example it describes him as a leading member of the Law Society, but he is a barrister. He is said to be Bar representative on the Revenue Law Committee of the Law Society, Capital Taxes sub-committee - plausable, but the Law Society page for the present comittee lists a Martin Green, who is not said to be a barrister so at best the article is out of date. I would vote for deletion if Brian Green's own page did not make legitimate claims to notability, that in July 2008 Brian was featured as one of the Top 50 lawyers in the UK by The Sunday Times, in July 2009, Brian featured as Lawyer of the Week in The Times and at The Lawyer Awards in June 2010 Brian was singled out as "outstanding" and as a "tour de force in pensions and private client law". So reluctantly, I have to come down to voting for clean-up and keep if those claims can be verified. AJHingston (talk) 00:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as the article is now written there are no legitimate claims of notability. AJHingston points out some potential claims of notability but as we stand now we can not verify those claims from any sources independent of the subject. If reliable sources independent of the subject that can verify these claims surface I will certainly reconsider my !vote. J04n(talk page) 12:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - I am not sure he passes my standards for notability of attorneys. I have to look into that, and possibly amend them. QC and tenured lectureship certainly count, but I'm not sure it is enough. If we can not verify the claims therein, then he fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP in any case. It is one thing to plead a case, but another entirely different thing to prove it. Bearian (talk) 15:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability --Ashershow1_{talk•contribs} 18:17, 5 March 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.