Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel A. Graham

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 keep. Tone 12:37, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel A. Graham

Rachel A. Graham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Wisconsin Court of Appeals. Note, there are articles on all the judges on this intermediate state court, and likely each of them merit only a redirect to the court itself, unless there's some indicium of notability apart from working on this court. TJRC (talk) 18:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete people who do not hold state-wide judgeships are not notable as judges and she has no other claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the barely articulated rationale here is not sufficient for deletion. The notability guidance referenced in earlier comments are not the minimum standard for an article to be retained (otherwise half of Wikipedia would be deleted)—they're standards to confer automatic notability. Failure to meet those automatic notability standards would not make an article automatically "not notable". In fact,
  WP:USCJN states that membership on a state appellate court is "strong evidence of notability." Additionally, from Wikipedia's editor policy on deletion considerations for notability: "The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth." Simply put, the burden of proof in deletion discussion is on those seeking to delete the article. The only review that seems to have been done here was a quick determination that the judge is not elected by a state-wide vote and the article does not in its present form indicate notability -- that is not sufficient work on the part of deletion advocates for their rationale to prevail. There has been no effort on the part of deletion-votes to research news or legal journals which could substantiate the relevance of the article. Furthermore, the "state-wide judge" guidance is being badly misapplied here—at least in Wisconsin, all published Appeals Court rulings have statewide effect and create statewide precedent, even though the judges are elected in four geographic regions for administrative purposes. Only a fraction of their decisions are ever reviewed by the state supreme court. The Appeals court is effectively the court of final review for more than 90% of cases in the state. There's a vast difference between circuit judges, which are more like county officers, and appeals judges, whose decisions (in a simple 3-judge panel) can alter state law. As a general rule every judge of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals is at least as notable as any Wisconsin state senator (1 of 33) or assemblymember (1 of 99), whose notability is simply presumed due to their membership in a state legislative body. In U.S. media and politics there is a massive inclination to consider the role of legislators and ignore the role of judges in setting our laws and rights in this country -- the lack of good and reliable information and attention on judges has been a disservice to the public and Wikipedia should not encourage this pattern of lazy neglect. --Asdasdasdff (talk) 16:09, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

A more complete quote from

WP:USCJN

is "holding such a position is strong evidence of notability that can be established by other indicia of notability". No other indicia of notability have been cited here, nor do any appear to exist from my own searches.

And please stop your invective against other editors who simply do not share your views. Apart from being a violation of

Wikipedia policy, it hinders, rather than helps, your arguments if you need to rely on such tactics to make your case. TJRC (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Weak Keep as per
  general notability, and agreement with User:Asdasdasdff, as once in a while an invective is all right. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per User:Asdasdasdff and per my comments at a related DRV. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk)`
• Keep - way easily passes my rules for jurists. Bearian (talk) 11:59, 14 September 2020 (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.