Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Elfving

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 Sources which are available/have been added are more than sufficient to show notability. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 01:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William Elfving

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log

)

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

A local judge who has absolutely no apparent notability at all. JOJ ^Hutton 23:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Why do you believe they have no notability? That is ludicrous and indicates you didnt do any research. Why are you templating me with speedy,prod+afd notices instead of talking with me, like a human. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not the readers job to do research to determine notability. This should be stated clearly in the article as to why this person is notable enough for an article. And
    personal attack on me noted.--JOJ ^Hutton 01:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • To the contrary, it is in fact the nominator's responsibility to determine notability before nomination. See
      WP:BEFORE.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• DeleteNo apparent notability of subject. Article states that he is a judge. Judges on their own are not notable. The only link used a reference is a dead link and cannot be verified. Delete per
  WP:POLITICIAN.--JOJ ^Hutton 01:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Its pretty easy to verify he was a judge; that fact is in law reporters and all over the internet. This bio was linked to from
    WP:BLP1E. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Notability should be apparent with what is written in the article. Being a Judge is not notable, by itself. I agree with a redirect, if that is the route you wish to continue with.--JOJ ^Hutton 01:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please do not !vote in an AfD you initiated. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 10:18am • 00:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Little does one know, that this is not a vote. My comment stands, as it should.--JOJ ^Hutton 00:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I SUGGEST YOU READ
            WP:!vote then as you clearly do not undestand what it is. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 11:34am • 01:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
            ]
• Note to closing admin: The above !vote is by the nominator, duplicating opinion in nomination contrary to
  WP:AFDFORMAT. I struck it, but was reverted.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Since deletion discussions are not votes, but are based on policy, it matters little now does it?--JOJ ^Hutton 04:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it doe. It's standard practice for the nominator not to !vote on an AfD they initiated, as by starting the initial debate, you've already made your position clear. Plus, you have an inherent
    conflict of interest being the nominator. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 10:22am • 00:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]

JoJ, you should take note of WP:Articles for deletion#Contributing to a deletion discussion where it states "Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line."

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep—Per
  WP:POLITICIAN#2, Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage, also applies, and the coverage easily satisfies that, even if the lack of biographical information available makes it seem as if the GNG doesn't apply.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • There are absolutely positively no sources in this article to confirm notability. Saying that there are, without using them in the article is useless. Try improving the article and stating why this judge is notable, "in the article". The only source that IS provided no longer works, and is a broken link. All this article says is that he is a judge. Thats all. Judges are not notable for being judges alone. Only if they sat on major cases. The article doesn't even say that. It needs to say why the subject is notable, not that he is a judge only. If he sat on major cases, then it needs to say so. The article does not pass
    WP:V, which is one of wikipedias 3 core content policies.--JOJ ^Hutton 04:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination. (
      WP:BEFORE#D3).— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • I didn't say that sources exist, you did. Even with sources, do these sources confirm notability,and to what extent? Seriously, tell me why this guy is notable. What cases has he sat on that would make him notable? The web links you linked above seem to have a
        WP:CIRCULAR.--JOJ ^Hutton 04:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
        ]
• Keep AFD is not cleanup. The subject is documented in works such as The American Bench which indicates that all such judges are notable. Warden (talk) 07:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We have huge precedent that not all holders of local judgeships are not notable, and there's no reason given here to show that this local judge is different. Nyttend (talk) 12:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Also this judge has presided over cases that have had some significance. Keep in mind he is not a Supreme Court Justice, and as such has not been a judge for headline cases such as Roe v. Wade Jab843 (talk) 17:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What cases of significance? Significant to whom? What examples are provided? Article says nothing and is not cited.--JOJ ^Hutton 17:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep OK, I have added information and references to the article to show that this judge is highly notable. His rulings have been reported in publications nationwide. I only scratched the surface with the links I added; he has more than 10 pages of links at Google news archive. The article as it existed was a stub, but that is not a reason for deletion; Wikipedia explicitly allows stubs, see
  WP:BEFORE (Before nominating for deletion, "If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources.") but they do apply. --MelanieN (talk) 20:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. The coverage is about his ruling not himself. See
  WP:NOTINHERITED. While judges become notable through issuing notable rulings not every judge who does so become notable. The criterion has to be coverage in reliable sources and that is lacking here. There are plenty of things that list his name in the context of his cases, but nothing that discusses him as a person or the body of his work as a judge that we need to create a biographical article. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep adequate coverage of his rulings to satisfy specialist notability guidelines if not GNG. I've added more references from reliable sources as the nominator asserts that there are no reliable sources to be found, at all. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 10:18am • 00:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As stated above, most of the coverage is directed toward the ruling, which in its self is suspect as far as notability goes. At the very least, this should be redirected to the single semi-notable ruling he made.--JOJ ^Hutton 00:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you not looked at the article since the addition of THREE rulings of his that received widespread press coverage? In fact, his role in the others was more prominent than his role in the one ruling that has a Wikipedia entry. There was a lot more coverage about other rulings of his that I could have added, but I thought three was enough to make the point. --MelanieN (talk) 22:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - normally, local/county trial judges are not notable, unless they pass
  intellectual property law cases. For that, he also passes my standards. Bearian (talk) 23:43, 21 November 2011 (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.