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. Michig (talk) 20:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edward H. Royle[edit]

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

Article of unclear notabilty. Article fail WP:BASIC and appears like WP:SELFPROMOTION Wikicology (talk) 18:33, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:58, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have included at least 2 newspaper cites quoting Edward H. Royle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinscriminalcode (talk • contribs)

Just because there's an article that mentions his name doesn't mean that he's notable, which is what this discussion is about. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 19:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'd CSD this, but there's an assertion of notability, hence why we're here. He fails basic, as there isn't the slightest hint of him being notable outside of mentions of basic court cases. While he may appear in newspapers, most lawyers do at some point or another. I don't see any significant coverage or anything that should put him above or beyond the other thousands of lawyers in Canada. It's entirely possible this could be a promo with the new note saying he'd do things "pro bono" in "certain circumstances". Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 19:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the mention of pro bono which was only included because that was what the article said. user:martinscriminalcode — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinscriminalcode (talk • contribs) 19:39, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What article? Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 20:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is CSD? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinscriminalcode (talk • contribs) 19:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

when articles can be speedily deleted and not go through a formal process like this. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 20:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry, I have to go with delete. He needs articles from reliable sources written about him in detail. Mentions in an attorneys directory might be more appropriate until articles outside Wikipedia show notability. Strawberrie Fields (talk) 19:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I added a cite from the lawyers directory. Martinscriminalcode (talk) 22:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)martinscriminalcode[reply]
Delete as not meeting notability guidelines. I would point out too that having an article in Wikipedia is never favorable to its subject. This is the encyclopedia that anyone can and does edit and is also usually the first hit on Google queries. Personally I would rather the first hit for my name be a website I controlled. TFD (talk) 06:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable individual. There are directory listings and some local coverage but no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Appearing as counsel in a notable case does not make him notable. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable individual. CesareAngelotti (talk) 23:02, 12 August 2014 (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.