Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ira D. Colvin
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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 delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ira D. Colvin
- Ira D. Colvin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
District Judge, got sent down for possession of methamphetamine. Not notable. Sure, there's a news story - but nothing of lasting significance. Scott Mac (Doc) 23:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - talk) 23:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, this has been around since 2006. I'm surprised it's still around, but you probably could have just talk) 23:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have, but there was an inclusionist admin objecting.--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I see. :) talk) 00:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleting something for being unsourced isn't a good idea if a source can be found. DS (talk) 00:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a good idea when the article in question poses ]
- Contesting a deletion, mearly because it can be sourced, isn't a good idea if the article is useless and unencyclopedic. It causes needless afds.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleting something for being unsourced isn't a good idea if a source can be found. DS (talk) 00:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I see. :)
- I would have, but there was an inclusionist admin objecting.--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, this has been around since 2006. I'm surprised it's still around, but you probably could have just
- Note: This debate has been included in the talk) 00:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A state judge arrested and sentenced for multiple drug crimes. For a ordinary citizen , this would be nothing significant. and we could surpress under donotharm. For a person in his position, it is important with respect to his professional suitability; given his political and legal role, it becomes major, though local.DGG (talk) 07:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Given this happened two and a half years ago, is there any evidence to support your assertion that this has some enduring significance (discussion, reference to, debate) in any source? I'm always afraid that the assertion that some event has significance beyond the initial news cycle is ultimately just our opinion.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BIO1E. Neither being a district judge nor being caught with meth are indicators of notability, so I don't see why the conjunction of the two should be worth much more than that. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- How exactly does ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This isn't even a district judge; it's an elected county judge. WP:NOTNEWS: there's no need for Wikipedia articles listing each time one of these happens. We aspire to more than tabulating each KSTU crime report. THF (talk) 12:08, 29 March 2009 (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.