Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alison Raeside

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 redirect‎ to Murder of Sara Sharif. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:39, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Raeside (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Does not pass WP:JUDGE or NBASIC. She is a family court judge. GNG is not fulfilled, as all other sourcing that is not passing is WP:BLP1E, the Murder of Sara Sharif case. Could be merged or redirected there. Other than passing notice and the one event which she was criticized for, there is nothing really to say. No source goes in depth in her as a person. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:40, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and United Kingdom. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:40, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect — seconding per nominator. That said; In my opinion, there is notability, here, concerning the judge(s) and the original legal decision to shield their names, which was then reversed on-appeal. However, I agree with the nominator, that this is not a qualifier for an article proper. It should re-direct to the murder of Sara Sharif case. In-context, this issue is notable. Sans context, this is a fairly standard legal decision that is made regularly concerning a judge who’s position does not automatically confer notability per WP:JUDGE. Failing consensus on a merge/redirect, I would proffer a weak delete; My only hesitation is that this appears to be a somewhat ongoing topic, so I would hesitate to apply BLP1E. That said, articles can always be re-created, if-needed. MWFwiki (talk) 02:11, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:38, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as ATD for someone who lacks notability today but a potential search term, and to retain article history. The criticism from Vos MR is just weeks old, no clear ripple effects on her or her reputation, so it looks like BP1E. Because of the anonymity order I think her involvement in the case (or anything else particularly noteworthy about her) wouldn't have any reporting prior to a few weeks ago. Oblivy (talk) 07:55, 7 February 2025 (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.