Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael C. Mentel

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. RL0919 (talk) 22:32, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael C. Mentel

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

As a mid-level judge and a former city council member, I do not believe this person meets the criteria set out under GNG or

Wikipedia:Politician. Local politicians and judges are neither inherently notable or inherently not notable. There is nothing in coverage found on Google or in newspaper searches that would put Judge Mentel into "notability". Biographical information found is from campaign websites (primary sources) or run of the mill coverage of a countywide campaign. Mpen320 (talk) 18:50, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions.--Mpen320 (talk) 18:58, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.--Mpen320 (talk) 18:58, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.--Mpen320 (talk) 18:58, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Delete: These guidelines may be helpful, specifically Such judges are not inherently notable, but holding such a position is strong evidence of notability that can be established by other indicia of notability. In particular, state courts of appeals judges who serve for a comparatively long time, who preside over important cases, or whose opinions are often cited by higher courts in the state, by federal courts, or by state courts in other states, are highly likely to be notable. It may be

WP:TOOSOON since they've only been in office since 2020, but they may be notable at a later date. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 19:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Reply. I should have addressed those guidelines in my official "declaration." I usually check against
Wikipedia:Academic (did they teach?) and use Bearian's notability standards for attorneys as a jumping off point to see if GNG can be established.--Mpen320 (talk) 21:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete badly sourced BLP who held a non-notable political position. SportingFlyer T·C 13:55, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He has not served at any level that would confer "inherent" notability under our inclusion standards for either politicians or judges, but the article is not
reliably sourced anywhere near well enough to make him a special case of greater notability than the norm for those offices. Bearcat (talk) 00:56, 15 June 2023 (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.