Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Stephanie Boyce

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|I Stephanie Boyce}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/I_Stephanie_Boyce Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|I Stephanie Boyce}})

No actual assertion of encyclopedic notability. Basically a well-written CV of a solicitor. The biggest claim is "will be president of the Law Society in 2022" - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. And even then, being president of the British Law Society does not automatically confer notability (the current president, for example, does not have an article). Excepting that, the next claim is being Deputy Vice President of the Law Society of England and Wales and an "Inspirational Speaker". References a mix of non-existent and passing mentions. Fish+Karate 15:01, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 23:40, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

• I wish to object to the proposed deletion of the I. Stephanie Boyce page.

:There are numerous references throughout the internet to this individual’s achievement and one that should readily sit in Wikipedia.

:To delete this article would remove an important part of the legal profession’s history and this individual’a accomplishment.

:Further the nominee has missed the point of the individual’s accomplishment, it is agreed that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball however the accomplishment to date is that in its 195 year history there has never been a black deputy vice president of the Law Society as reported in various publications.

• The basis for reaching a notability threshold is subjective. What is the standard that merits Wiki recognition? A casual review of some early Wiki bios would not surely qualify on the 'notability' criterion today. Arguably, standards have been raised over time - to the betterment of the Wiki as a resource. Social media developments such as Twitter tweet count might now be a relevant consideration to some, but not others.

:The Times article is probably the most significant evidence to support merit of this biography. The recognition of a 'first' (the first black president-to-be) in a prominent field of life - the Law Society of England & Wales since its formation in 1825. This appointment has obvious implications for societal change in a traditionally conservative profession; the law. The implications for this bio is surely enough to be 'notable'

:What evidence is there that the bio has been drafted for pecuniary advantage? Wiki has a strong bedrock of contributors who do so for purely altruistic reasons for the benefit of all. Agreed, a more neutral and dispassionate tone would help.

• Delete This is completed a promotional bio. Its SEOed to the max and is written like a resume ("In her most recent roles, as General Counsel and Company Secretary Boyce delivered strategic change in complex environments, bringing clarity to strategic planning and delivering improved legal services in challenging financial circumstances."- Really? You don't think that's not promotional?). I also have serious WP:SOCK concerns, the only Keep arguments on this AfD are the creator of the article and an account with no [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Smilkit edits outside of the AfD]. Both written in a similar style and both are unsigned. A third SPA left a similar, unsigned comment on the AfD's talk page. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:32, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.