Wiki143:Articles for deletion/Constance briscoe

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 of the debate was no consensus. W.marsh 00:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Constance briscoe

Tagged for speedy but notability asserted. Hard to call, really. Some kind of coverage, but nothing compelling. Not speedy material, anyway. Just zis Guy you know? 22:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep & clean up Looks notable to me (I've done a bit of cleanup). Add the book's ISBN (and any other works), a little on her legal career and trim down the synopsis of the abuse and this could be a good article. -- Scientizzle 22:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Judges are definitely notable. More about her legal career and a less emotive (but still factual, obviously) account of her childhood would improve things a lot. Tevildo 22:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Judges are not automatically notable. And certainly having an ISBN or media coverage isnt. I don't see how her childhood or the book makes this remotely encyclopedic. If she was the first black female judge, maybe, but "one of the first"? First 5, first 10, first 20?. Bwithh 23:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Point of Information According to the referenced sources, Briscoe is a part time judge known as a recorder. Recorders only handle less serious cases, see Crown_Court#judges. It also seems that Recorders typically only sit as judges for a few weeks per year Bwithh 23:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Follow-up Point of Information In 2005, it was reported (see Table 1: Ethnic minorities in the judiciary) that as of November 2004 there were 1,339 trained recorders in England and Wales. Of these, 175 were women, 62 belonged to an ethnic minority and 17 were black. There were 13 ethnic minority women recorders, including 5 black women recorders. Bwithh 23:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is an important book, and it is published by Hodder & Stoughton, a well-known British publishing company. TruthbringerToronto 23:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is this is an encyclopedically important book? The publishing company is irrelevant. Bwithh 00:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Subject may be notable, but I can't see anything worth saving in this article. If she warrants an article, a redlink would probably yield a better one than keeping this. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 00:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep & tag for clean up per Scientizzle. A case could apparently be made using suitable reference sources that this is a notable author - they appear to have enough to pass WP:BIO. However, at the moment the article in no way approaches the required quality. A starting point might be this London Times interview.
• Keep per above. wikipediatrix 21:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Can the Keep voters come up with a better case for keep than "she's a part-time minor judge and she's written a book about her experience of child abuse which got some human interest news coverage"? how is this person of encyclopedic notability?Bwithh 03:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    • "Constance Briscoe" gets 23,900 Google hits--this author has had, apparently, a lot of coverage. According to this article, Ugly "hit number one on the Times bestsellers list". Bestselling authors, I think, get a pass for notability. -- Scientizzle 05:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Response Actually not that much coverage - I counted about 15-16 articles in the national newspapers plus 3-4 articles in international newspapers in a Factiva newspaper and magazine database search. Nothing special in the course of a book marketing campaign. The google count is inflated by book shopping websites. As for the Times bestseller list, the augustness of its peers is not exactly reliable. (Haven't been able to find the number one ranking for Ugly on the times website) Bwithh 21:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Per Scientizzle - I linked a Times interview above. Alright, they have dumbed-down recently, but I'd imagine you generally have to be 'somebody' to get an interview. This isn't just one of those ten-a-penny vanity author AfDs IMO. I'm not even considering her status as a judge at all, and I think it's a Keep.--DaveG12345 06:50, 28 June 2006 (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.