Talk:Thomas Crowther (judge)
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Requested move 11 February 2019
[edit]- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: clear consensus not to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 03:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Thomas Crowther (judge) → Thomas Crowther (lawyer) – Subject is no longer is a judge. Please see the text and footnote 3 which is official confirmation of his resignation KodakPaxton (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. Irrespective of the subject's later activities, their notability is derived from their time as a judge. We have, by way of comparison, lots of articles on long-retired athletes disambiguated by the sport or even the position they once played. In fact, we have lots of articles on long-retired (or long-dead) judges with the same disambiguator. bd2412 T 17:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP:DEFUNCTS and bd2412. When someone dies, we wouldn't rename the article about them to "Joe Smith (corpse)". —BarrelProof (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose as above. Being a judge is the only reason he has an article. Silly proposal, I'm afraid. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:04, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose for all above reasons Psalms79;6-7 (talk) 15:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.