Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Adams (judge)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by UBeR (talk | contribs) at 09:11, 3 November 2011. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

William Adams (judge)

William Adams (judge) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to fail WP:BLP1E. The incident would clearly not be notable in isolation. The subject is really one of Internet vigilantism, rather than Adams per se, and the article makes an accusation based on conjecture in the press, leaving the sourcing decidedly shaky. Acroterion (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • The odds are high that some form of protection will have to be instituted while this is being kicked around here. Acroterion (talk) 19:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've semi-protected the article as it's showing an increasing rate of reverts for BLP issues added by IPs. This is without comment or prejudice concerning this discussion. Acroterion (talk)
  • Comment Career information should be added for balance—a Google search suggests the judge is known online prior to this event. The KRIS-TV interview takes this past the realm of "conjecture in the press". (COI note: I re-created this article, figuring all it needed was sources.) / edg ☺ ☭ 18:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have cut it back to a one line stub. ukexpat (talk) 18:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sole reason for the article's existance is the 1E. As for being an "elected state judge" - that claim is not even made in the article - Wikipedia is not clarvoyant that he is an elected judge, so the claim of notability on that basis must be made clearly and referenced accurately - neither facts as to election, term of office, background as a judge - nothing to affirm notability on that basis. And a one line stub is not enough to make a reasonable assertion of notability. The employee list, by the way, does not state his term of office etc. at all, and he is, at most, a "county judge" and not a "state judge." Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All Texas judges are elected. The fact that he serves in a particular county (which is sourced) means nothing. California is the same way, although judges in California are both appointed and elected, but they are state judges attached to a particular county. Here's a quote from Forbes ([1]), if it helps, although it is bereft of details: "Judge William Adams holds an elected office".--Bbb23 (talk) 19:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Forbes states he is an Aransas County Court-at-Law judge. Note the word "County" there. It does not state that he is a State judge. [2] the "county courts" are "courts of limited jurisdiction." They can handle some misdemeanors, uncontested probate cases, juvenile cases, and low-level civil actions. They can not even hear felonies, major civil cases, etc. Contested probate matters also are heard by district courts and not by county courts. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and yes, all Texas judges are elected, he won, that seems notable enough and high enough office to automatically qualify for inclusion. As to the content of the article, that is a subject for the talk page, not AFD. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The applicable rule is: Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office Noting that a countywide office is not a statewide office. The requirement in not simply "elected" but that the office must be a statewide office. Judge Adams fails WP:POLITICIAN and is thus not notable. Chees. Collect (talk) 19:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think WP:POLITICIAN is being interpreted correctly here (i.e., consistent with established consensus). Yes, Adams is a state court judge, but he sits as an ordinary trial court judge at the county level, and I don't think such judges should be presumed notable by virtue of that position alone. He does not hold a "state-wide office" as that term is used in WP:POLITICIAN, which would instead mean a state state supreme court judge (regardless of whether they're elected or appointed--it varies from state to state and shouldn't matter for notability purposes), or possibly a judge on an intermediate appellate state court. postdlf (talk) 19:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply I get your point and generally agree in prinipal, but only if the only coverage was being elected county judge. The rest of wp:politician says:
Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.[7] Generally speaking, mayors of cities of at least regional importance are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city.
Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".
...and the problem here is that he HAS gotten significant coverage. In this case, if he had done some criminal activity that got press (1 event), but not elected OR if elected but never got the bad press, then he wouldn't meet the criteria. The case itself puts him into GNG territory, but 1event territory. The two together make the event, and him, more notable. It is a bit borderline, but all things considered, I think when a politician commits crimes like this, it IS more notable than Joe Sixpack because he is a public figure. Of course, half of the events that make him notable aren't in the article at the writing of this comment.... I can see both sides, but have to stick with believing that the combination of being elected and significant coverage of his activities passes wp:gng even with wp:blp1e concerns. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG, if satisfied, establishes a presumption of notability, which can be overcome by sufficient concerns under WP:BLP1E or WP:NOTNEWS. postdlf (talk) 19:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Local judges aren't inherently notable, the office not being statewide. That leaves the fact that as a GNG candidate the coverage is for a single event, which trumps GNG. No inherent notability + BLP1E problems do not add up to notability. Acroterion (talk) 20:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to look into this further, but, as I said, if it works as it does in California, judges presiding in counties are still judges that have been appointed or elected to state office. I believe it says so somewhere in the California constitution (I'm not looking for it). I believe Adams is subject to all the normal things for state judges, including, for example being subject to discipline by state judicial commission. Take a look at Texas judicial system.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nope - the Texas site clearly shows County Courts as being "limited" in many ways - like no big civil cases, no contested probate cases, some misdemeanors, and absolutely no felony cases. There are many hundreds of "county judges" in tghe US, and WP:NOTABILTY, by specifying "statewide" clearly does not give them auto-notability. Cheers - but somehow I think Texas does not use the California laws <g>. Collect (talk) 19:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The jurisdiction of a judge shouldn't alter the analysis. And your repetition of "county judge" doesn't make it a fact.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not in question that county courts are part of a state's judicial system. That's not the point. The problem is you keep saying "state office" instead of "state-wide office", when that's what WP:POLITICIAN is concerned with, judges at the trial/county level of a state's judiciary are not considered to hold state-wide office. postdlf (talk) 19:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't buy the distinction you're making. By your logic, again using California as an example because I'm more famililar with it, the only state judges who would be inherently notable would be the Califronia Supreme Court justices. Even Court of Appeal justices are relegated to districts in the state, not to what you stress as "statewide". One of the things that should matter is whether a judge applies state law. Thus, if a Texas judge applies state statutes in his decisionmaking, he is a state judge and for all practical purposes holds statewide office. State judges in Los Angeles County have different responsibilities, but they apply state law and hold a statewide office in that sense.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest that the closest analogue to a county judge is a county sheriff, who is elected by a geographically-restricted constituency, but applies state laws. Sheriffs aren't automatically notable as a consequence of their office, nor are county prosecutors, who are elected office holders on the state payroll in many states. Supreme court judges and statewide appeals boards, yes, they meet WP:POLITICIAN. I see no state-wide office here simply because they apply state law. Acroterion (talk) 20:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Municipal governments in the U.S. also ultimately get their power to enact local ordinances from state law and are considered instruments of the state for constitutional purposes, but that's no more relevant to our notability analysis of municipal politicians than it is to trial court-county level judges. It's not a question of legal interpretation. It's a question of what we editors meant when we wrote and have since applied WP:POLITICIAN. There might be a new consensus that county judges are inherently notable, but that would be a change from standing practice, such that existing guideline language can't be invoked. It would require a new argument as to why they should be considered inherently notable by that position alone. postdlf (talk) 21:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that explanation about what was in your minds when you wrote the policy and "standing practice." Might I suggest the policy be reworded to be clearer?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're certainly entitled to express your opinion as to what the guideline means, but your conjecture about others is beneath you. Why do AfDs automatically bring out the worst in some otherwise reasonable editors?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E. He is in newspapers worldwide in a burst of coverage of an alleged 2004 videotape of the whipping of a child with a belt by a cursing man. Before the release of the tape, he was just a county judge of little note. That level of judicial office has not been taken as inherently notable in previous AFDs I have seen. Google News archive shows only passing references and very routine and run of the mill coverage of his judicial actions, not sufficient to satisfy WP:BIO. If the alleged beating somehow gains significance, as the subject of plays, movies, books, or it it motivates the passage of some new law, or has other societal effects beyond one news cycle, or it becomes a notable crime, then an article could be created. Stating that he video and the article are an attack is ironic, in light of what the video shows. News articles now say that Adams has [acknowledged the authenticity of the video, while saying it wasn't as bad as it looks. Edison (talk) 23:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:BLP1E would suggest moving the article to a name about the event. But this is merely newsworthy, not notable, and Wikipedia is not news; WP:NOTNEWS. There's no basis for notability based on his judicial position; although this judgeship is a state office, it's a county judgeship, not a state-wide elected position. TJRC (talk) 00:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my above comments: as non-notable low-level judge, and per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. We need more sustained coverage and indicators of continuing significance than this to justify an article. postdlf (talk) 01:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge into an article about this incident in particular, as it has the potential to become a major news story. Hermitage (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. If a criminal case follows from this revelation (that of the leaked video portraying abuse), then we can start considering whether we create an article for this. But for now, it isn't yet deserving of a standalone article. --JB Adder | Talk 01:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename (leave redirect), make the article about the incident and not the person, as per wp:BLP1E: In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article Buddy431 (talk) 01:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On what grounds? Questions about WP:POLITICIAN aside, the beating of Hillary Adams is irrefutably verifiably notable. WikiScrubber (talk) 03:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you say, and I disagree. I have a partial alphabet too, and it contains the combinations BLP, BLP1E, and IAR. Oh, and NOTNEWS. And PRIVACYFORCRYINGOUTLOUD. Drmies (talk) 03:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Amusingly, WP:LYNCH redirects to RFC/U, but it could just as easily go to BLP1E. Acroterion (talk) 03:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and the fork at Beating of Hillary Adams. The subject is not notable, and inadequate time has passed to provide any indication that this event is of lasting significance. VQuakr (talk) 03:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can anyone please periodically check the article for BLP-violating SYNTH, OR and edit-warring? Thank you. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 04:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ahem, yeah, sure, I would--but that multitude of templates is ridiculous. Drmies (talk) 04:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. I was simply trying to indicate that every single one of these conjunctions and terms were invented to promote a synthetic observation. It is not always clear to someone who does not have a concept of SYNTH and OR what really is synthesis or original research. To an experienced editor it may be obvious but the tagging is meant to show the existence of OR and SYNTH structurally to someone unfamiliar with the concepts. If you revert everything to the BLPN consensus single sentence version the tags are not needed. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 04:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I think it's overkill. But in the meantime, the warring has broken out again, and I was going to fully protect the article but I'd really like some independent eyes on the article (mine aren't so independent, since I have an opinion here in this AfD). I posted a notice on ANI. I could tell you what I'm hoping for, but I think you can guess. Drmies (talk) 04:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree it is an overkill. But sometimes, in resistant cases, demonstrating SYNTH and OR word-by-word may be necessary, at least IMO. The ANI notice was an excellent idea and the report well framed. Thank you. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 04:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • "But sometimes, in resistant cases, demonstrating SYNTH and OR word-by-word may be necessary" ...Wow. What an odd kind of reasoning. Feudonym (talk) 04:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Sorry that I have to be direct but it is not any stranger than your resistance to understand that Youtube and the tabloids are not reliable sources, not to mention the blatant synthesis and original research of your edits in addition to your BLP-violating edit-warring. Here I am trying to show you word by word what SYNTH and OR mean and these are the thanks I get from you. What an utter waste of time. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 05:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • I have never shown "resistance to understand" anything. That was the first time you conversed with me so you maybe you are confusing me with someone else. The YouTube link was just to illustrate the video in question, it was not meant to be irrefutable proof of everything in the article. Furthermore, I was under the impression that MailOnline, the online arm of national UK newspaper Daily Mail was a reliable source, in addition to others such as NZ Herald, but you seemed to have immediately dismissed these as gossipy or unreliable websites and deleted them (without a single look?). Oh well, I guess these events have not been covered by a single reliable source as you say and hence the whole article needs deleting. I'll leave you to it. Feudonym (talk) 05:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Conversation does not always happen in a direct way. Before we addressed each other on this page we indirectly communicated by edit summaries as shown on the article history. Unfortunately in the beginning no amount of tagging for synthesis or original research on my part was sufficient to end the edit war. This is what I meant by a failure to understand the meaning of synthesis etc. On a more positive note, your latest edits do show considerable improvement in these areas. But I will not try to claim any credit. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 05:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • But I have to admit there may be some hope yet. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 05:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, as he's an elected official in the news, and this can only be expanded if it is kept. If sufficient media coverage is not there then it can be deleted in future.Feudonym (talk) 04:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/William_Adams_(judge)&oldid=458778664"