Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ann Callis
- 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 no consensus. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Ann Callis
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Ann Callis (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)
The claim to notability is that she was a judicial circuit judge and a candidate for Congress. She was elected to the third circuit which represents Madison County and Bond County as per the Illinois Blue Book, a fairly small jurisdiction. Her judgeship, while an accomplishment, as a trial level judge elected by the voters of two counties, she is not presumed notable under notability. There is no record that she ruled on any cases of note. The closest thing is that "she was involved with the creation of the first Veterans’ Court in Illinois, which received the national 2010 Paul H. Chapman Award," but that phrase is so vague her actual level of involvement cannot be known and cannot be used to claim notability. Her candidacy, while Illinois's 13th was a targeted race, but does not meet the level of historical interest set by the candidacy of
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 00:58, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 00:58, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:40, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Your argument is ignoring ]
- Keep This page clearly has enough sources to fulfill GNG, and feel that the OP could have pursued these changes in another form, showing this whole AfD runs afoul of WP:PRESERVE. I would suggest the OP improve the image to make it stronger rather than pursuing deletion as a "solution". Also the example cited as "evidence" to support the deletion seems faulty as well. Historyday01 (talk) 04:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)]
- Comment. I did a Google and newspaper search and came to the conclusion that Callis does not meet GNG as a local officeholder and one time Congressional candidate which makes any alternatives to deletion a moot point. You and other editors are more than happy to find GNG meeting content to demonstrate to others the merit(s) of our respective views. You mention "improve the image." My nomination does not mention any image. I feel that is just setting up an argument I did not make to strengthen your view, which is unfair.--Mpen320 (talk) 00:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would like to see more participation before closing
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller (talk) 01:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Does not pass WP:NPOL, not elected to office. As per nom, minor judicial appointment, fails WP:GNG. Coverage presented in the main is routine local media generated from electoral candidacy. Lacks "significant coverage". Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment This is a difficult AfD because most of the coverage is local coverage, both of the subject's appointment as a judge and in the context of her candidacy for Congress (as shown in the article). There is some (brief) coverage of her accomplishments as a judge. If the consensus is to not keep the page, it should be redirected to ]
- Delete BLPs need clearly Ind RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notabilty to avoid abuse. These do not meet that standard. Not seeing anything with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth, just routine local news. Doesn't meet GNG, BASIC, ANYBIO, NPOL. // Timothy :: talk 12:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's consensus that there's no inherent notability here, but no consensus so far on GNG. Detailed analyses of the source material would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 15:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)- Keep. Sufficient WP:GNG. Questionable on WP:NPOL but sufficient sourcing I lean towards preserve. Jo7hs2 (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep because of enough of ]
- Delete: The coverage that exists appears to almost entirely be in the form of routine local election coverage, which is not typically considered sufficient for this kind of article; this is because it is the duty of local news to provide information on local candidates, but this does not necessarily translate to wide notability. Similarly, the cited national sources basically only provide a name drop, which is clearly not sufficient. Curbon7 (talk) 15:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC)]
- Delete - I agree with Curbon's assessment of the sourcing. Does not meet ]
- 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.