Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carena Roller

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. Michig (talk) 07:13, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carena Roller[edit]

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

Non-notable judge. Usually Wikipedia articles about circuit court judges exist only if the judge presided over a notable criminal case or went viral which Judge Roller did neither. Also the article is poorly sourced. Otis the Texan (talk) --Otis the Texan (talk) 03:06, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Judges at the trial court level of the court system are not inherently notable, per WP:JUDGE. The article has no sources other than the government press release announcing the subject's appointment as a judge. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:12, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:03, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:03, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:03, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when somebody can actually show much more solid reliable sourcing. Judges are considered notable if they can be shown to pass WP:GNG, but are not handed an automatic inclusion freebie, or an exemption from having to pass GNG, just because the government's press release announcing their appointment to the court technically verifies that they exist. Bearcat (talk) 16:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searches show only the sort of WP:ROUTINE coverage that we would ordinarily expect of a circuit court judge. No indication that there is anything unusual to this judge's notability under GNG or the applicable SNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:12, 19 March 2018 (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.