Talk:Malcolm Bishop

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template. If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page. If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

It is ridiculous to suggest that this article should be deleted because it is blatant advertising. I was the creator of this article more than a year and four months ago. In all that time nobody has suggested to me until now that there is any advertising involved. I have absolutely no personal connection with Malcolm Bishop. I have never met him or communicated with him. I created this article because he is an eminent lawyer.--Oxonian2006 16:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I hope I have improved this article now. I have taken out everything that was merely copied from his commercial website and I have added important information about his having twice stood for Parliament and having apparently been at one time intended to become the senior law officer for the Welsh government.--Oxonian2006 16:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, article now asserts notability more clearly and advertising elements removed. I have removed the speedy deletion tag Parslad 17:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see why this chap merits his own article. I have nothing against him personally, but there are about 1000 practising QCs, and many rather more eminent than Mr Bishop. What is it about him? Ironman1104 17:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

He is not just a QC. There are other reasons why he is noteworthy. The article is not asserting that he is particularly eminent but that he has notability. A person may be eminent but not notable.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 19:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)