Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Conn (judge)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Conn (judge)[edit]

David Conn (judge) (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)

The sources provided in this article barely mention its subject, who is a living person - they only refer to him in passing in his role as a judge, and don't contain anything close to significant coverage of him as either a person or in his official role. As such, WP:BIO and WP:BLP are obviously not met, and it's unclear to me why the article was created. Nick-D (talk) 23:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 23:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 23:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature. This will also apply to those who have been elected but not yet sworn into such offices.

Four other members of the Court of Military Commission Review were nominated for deletion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Bechtold. The consensus there was that this court was a national court, and those articles were kept as per the clause I quoted above. The closing administrator wrote: The result was keep. Consensus seems to be that national-level appellate judges are notable ex officio. Consensus can change, but, given that closure, I thought an artice about Conn would also be in order. Geo Swan (talk) 23:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it's fair to say that we take BLP issues much more seriously than was the case in 2008, so that isn't a good precedent. Thank you for the explanation of why the article was created, but there appears to be no coverage of this person (for instance a search of Colonel David Conn returns almost nothing on Colonel Conn). Nick-D (talk) 00:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you please be more specific about your BLP concern? Geo Swan (talk) 00:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The presumption to privacy. On the basis of my search for sources (which seem to have returned similar results to yours judging from the sources used in the article) Colonel Conn is not notable. As such, we shouldn't have an article on him just because he holds a position through which he's presided over some cases which were reported in the media. On the basis of the near total lack of sources, I'm not at all convinced that there should be any assumption of notability for judges on this court. Nick-D (talk) 00:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay.
Thanks in advance for explaining your privacy concern. Geo Swan (talk) 01:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my above comment: he's not notable, so we shouldn't have an article on him, and in my view this article infringes his right to privacy. I hope that asking these questions in such a wordy fashion when I'd already explained my concern isn't an attempt to generate a discussion-stopping WP:CHUNK. Nick-D (talk) 01:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification please -- are you suggesting WP:BLP#People who are relatively unknown applies? I suggest he is a public figure. He has held a national office. He has published papers. Personal correspondence with him has been cited as a reference in other people`s documents. Geo Swan (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much. The near complete lack of sources about this person indicates that whatever the position he holds, he is not really a 'public figure' in any meaningful sense. Judges in prominent roles tend to attract lots of coverage in the legal press and more general news reports and other publications. Nick-D (talk) 23:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You wrote Judges in prominent roles... Please explain how it is not meaningful to recognize that a public official in a prominent role is a public figure... Geo Swan (talk) 09:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of sources on this judge indicates that this isn't a prominent judicial role. The court appears to be notable, but the near total lack of refs on this person doesn't support claims that its judges are themselves automatically notable. I'm not sure what you're hoping for here to be honest. I've explained my rationale repeatedly above, and you keep asking variants on same questions. I'm not going to answer them again as this really looks like an attempt at WP:CHUNK to me. Nick-D (talk) 09:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are free to claw-back what seemed to me to be an acknowledgment that Conn filled a “prominent role”.
While you have made several comments here it seems to me you have avoided addressing whether, according to WP:Notability (people)#Politicians (aka WP:POLITICIAN), holders of national offices are notable once RS confirm they held those offices. FWIW WP:SOLDIER similarly recommends that flag officers are notable once RS confirm they were promoted to flag rank. So, those who have argued that Conn is not notable according to WP:SOLDIER are not disputing that by the long-standing convention of WP:BIO there are narrow classes of individuals who are notable due to the offices they held -- without requiring documentation of the usual biographical details we would otherwise look for. Holders of national offices are an instance of one of those narrow classes. According to those who cite WP:SOLDIER, flag officers are another instance. Conn is not a flag officer, but he has held a national office. Geo Swan (talk) 14:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I never said he holds a "prominant role": I clearly said that the lack of references about this person demonstrate that the role isn't in fact prominent. This appears to be a textbook example of WP:CHUNK. Nick-D (talk) 22:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:SOLDIER and was a judge on a court that does not reach the bar of "members are significant". Could possibly be redirected to United States Court of Military Commission Review, but should be deleted first either way. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you please explain why should it matter whether or not he fulfills the criteria suggested in the essay WP:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide#People -- if he fulfills the criteria in guideline WP:Notability (people)#Politicians? Shouldn't a guideline trump a essay? Could you please address whether you agree or dispute whether he fulfills the criteria for WP:Notability (people)#Politicians as a judge holding a national office? Geo Swan (talk) 02:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • He fails WP:POLITICIAN, too, as I said in my initial statement ("...a judge on a court that does not reach the bar..."). - The Bushranger One ping only 06:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, but rather than repeat this phrase, can you explain your position? This court can hear appeals of death sentence cases, which I suggest puts it at just below the level of a national Supreme Court. So why do you consider this a court that does not “pass the bar”? Geo Swan (talk) 11:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Because this is a military court, not a national one - courts-martial can enforce capital sentences, too, but aren't near the level of a national supreme court. - The Bushranger One ping only 15:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, the USCMCR is a less important court than the SCOTUS. But where did you get the idea that WP:Notability (people)#Politicians aka WP:POLITICIAN only applies to members of the SCOTUS? I think the literal meaing would apply to any judge at the national level. Can you explain why you think the current wording doesn't apply to any judge at the national level? Most of the judges who considered the Guantanamo captives' habeas petitions were US District Court Judges. Why wouldn't WP:POLITICIAN apply to any of them? I think one of two of the people who responded here have said they are lawyers in real life. They may not like hundreds of their public sector colleagues being considered notable. But I think that would be a concern that should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). Geo Swan (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've just removed some fairly POV wording from the article. This includes material relating to 'controversial' tactics used by the prosecution in a case Conn presided over which was cited to a primary source which didn't mention Conn (the news story on the trial only identifies him as being one of the panel of judges which presided over it), a couple of irrelevant quotes included as part of reference citations, and POV wording which implied that Spc. Adam Winfield committed murder - he was found guilty of not preventing murders rather than committing them. Nick-D (talk) 04:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable subject, Fails WP:BIO and also Fails WP:SOLDIER. The creator Geo Swan's arguement of WP:POLITICIAN fails on "the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article", because there is no coverage of the subject other than taking the name in the articles on proceedings.--DBigXray 06:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteFails WP:BIO and WP:SOLDIER. I can't find reliable sources with in-depth coverage of the topic, which are required to establish notability. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 08:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - (1) colonels are not inherently notable, and (2) the court on which he was a judge is not a major appellate court. He also fails my standards for notability of attorneys. Bearian (talk) 23:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, subject fails WP:GNG as there is not "significant coverage" directly regarding the individual. Additionally subject fails WP:SOLDIER. The military tribunal may pass WP:GNG, however those individuals who are part of said tribunal appear not to warrant individual articles. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- We have policies, guidelines, conventions, and essays. Sometimes arguments in {{afd}} call upon documents in the Wikipedia: namespace as if they had the authority of policy or guideline, when they are essays. Some essays are very widely accepted, and, with some work, and a broad discussion, could be promoted to the status of a guideline.
Several contributors here have argued that this article should be deleted because it does not comply with WP:SOLDIER. But WP:SOLDIER is an essay, and WP:POLITICIAN is a guideline. If the article does comply with WP:POLITICIAN I suggest an accepted guideline trumps an essay.
I request the closing administrator discount all respondents above who echoed the opinion the article violates the essay WP:SOLDIER.
I suggest the most important question here is whether Conn meets the criteria of holding a national office as a judge.
One correspondent above asserted "...the court on which he was a judge is not a major appellate court." First, so what? WP:POLITICIAN says nothing about sitting on an appellate court. Second, the USCMCR is an appeallate court -- one empowered to consider appeals in death sentence cases. That correspondent doesn`t say what a “major” appellate court is, but I suggest any appellate court empowered to consider appeals of death sentence cases should be considered a “major” court.
Another correspondent above asserts Conn was "...a judge on a court that does not reach the bar..." -- but without explaining this assertion. As above, he is a national judge, as per WP:POLITICIAN, and, as above, the USCMCR is a court authorized to consider appeals in death sentence cases.
Do we sometimes ignore all rules? Yes. But, I suggest, when we do so, we should do so after meaningful arguments have been made to explain why we should make an exception. No offense but, I suggest, the arguments for making an exception advanced so far have boiled down to simply “I don`t like it.”
For what it is worth I initiated a discussion a couple of days ago -- Should we create a new namespace, for essays? -- where I tried to address the general problem of {{afd}}s where essays were treated as if they had the authority of policy. While my specific proposal found no support I think there is a widespread concern over essays being cited as if they were policies. Geo Swan (talk) 20:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Essays remain essays instead of policies because you have to go through the gauntlet of 40 musk-infested elephants to get them to be anything more. The solution isn't to marginalize essays, but instead to establish that essays which are accepted by broad consensus of the community become guidelines, or at least are considered equally. (And I still find it darkly amusing that nobody ever trots out the "oh, that's just an essay" argument with regards to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.) Oh, and since the article fails WP:POLITICIAN as well, your request that the 'closing admin...discount all respondents...who [stated] the essay violates WP:SOLDIER', without qualification, smacks of trying to get their !votes thrown out completely, even though all the WP:SOLDIER citers above have also stated that he doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN, WP:BIO and/or WP:GNG. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • We agree that some of the highest quality and most accepted essays should be considered for promotion to guideline status. Some other essays are crap. Others, without being crap, reflect a fringe viewpoint, and should not be promoted to guideline status, for that reason. And still others, while valuable, may be impossible to turn into guidelines for various reasons.
So, are you tacitly acknowledging WP:SOLDIER, an essay, would be trumped by WP:POLITICIAN -- if WP:POLITICIAN is applicable?
You wrote: “...since the article fails WP:POLITICIAN as well...” Rather than simply repeating this assertion could you try to explain your reasoning... I quoted the first numbered point from the politicians` section of WP:BIO above. The third numbered point, in contrast, states:

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".

I suggest these two numbered points establish a clear distinction between the required notability criteria for LOCAL officials and NATIONAL officials. Numbered point three makes clear LOCAL officials are not guaranteed notability. LOCAL officials can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion. I suggest the distinction being made here is that holders of NATIONAL offices are notable when RS confirm they hold that office. Period. If this wasn`t true there would be no reason for WP:BIO to have a politicians section, at all.
With regard to WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BIO -- just to be clear, you realize that WP:POLITICIAN doesn`t contradict WP:BIO? You realize that WP:POLITICIAN is a specific shortcut to the section of WP:BIO that applies to politicians -- and other office holders like judges?
With regard to WP:GNG -- the GENERAL notability guidelines are supplemented by specific guidelines, like WP:POLITICIAN.
With regard to the role of the closing administrator -- it is my understanding that the closing administrator has a responsibility to discount me too opinions, and to evaluate the extent to which the arguments advanced comply with our policies, guidelines and established conventions. No offense, but while you have been quite clear that you don`t want WP:POLITICIAN applied here, you really haven`t tried to explain why. So, no offense, by my understanding of the closing administrator`s responsibilities, he or she should discount your opinion. Geo Swan (talk) 10:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Er, I do want WP:POLITICIAN applied here. Because this is a military court, not a national one - courts-martial can enforce capital sentences, too, but aren't near the level of a national supreme court - and he does not pass it. - The Bushranger One ping only 15:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep appellate level judges are notable. The distinction between essays, guideline , and policies is very vague, not only because because we can make exceptions to any of them, but because the actual effect of all of them depends not on how the text is written, but how the community chooses to interpret it. The basic rule of our operation is CONSENSUS, which is itself an interpretation of IAR, and means we can do whatever we want to do if we agree on it. e make the encyclopedia. We decide what is for the good of the encyclopedia. We decide what we want to include. What we want to do depends on what we as a collectivity thinks we should do. Given essentially and reasonable or unreasonable view on that, I can find policy based reasons for it--or against it. The validity of the argument is judged by only one criterion, whether the community agrees on the result. In this case the court is of so great importance that it is reasonable to consider the judges of it notable. Several years ago i realized the uselessness of discussions on policy and by and large stopped participating in them, as I realized the discussions were a waste of time, even when they reached a conclusion. What we say there , and the eventual result of policy discussions, actually don't matter. What we do in individual cases matters. The contrary view is based on the way we have been brought up to respect established authority. This lacks relevance in a community like ours, where we ourselves are the responsible authority, and nobody can judge us, and say except as a personal opinion whether we are right or wrong in what we do. If it makes sense for an encyclopedia , we should do it, and there is no other rule.
I consider that the attempts to remove these articles are in effect political bias, to avoid coverage of what makes the US look in a bad light. This practice is so destructive to an honest encyclopedia that our balanced should be towards keeping them if in doubt. I remain a child of the 60s--with principles based ultimately on the Enlightenment The purpose and effect of free information is to counter the establishment. DGG ( talk ) 06:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Er, what? I'm nominating this article for deletion as because its a BLP with no sources to establish notability. Accusing me of doing so due to some kind of "political bias" seems to be a rather massive assumption of bad faith. The rest of your post appear to fall under WP:ITSIMPORTANT I'm afraid. Nick-D (talk) 06:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Usually, when someone objects to the wording of a policy or guideline, aren`t they simply told to express their objection on the policy or guideline`s talk page, or on some other relevant policy fora -- and let the Xfd play out according to the current wording?
If what you really want is for the closing administrator to ignore the current wording of the relevant guideline -- to exercise WP:ignore all rules -- wouldn`t it be best for the project if you offered open and explicit arguments for IAR? Geo Swan (talk) 09:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you're trying to pretend that my nomination is based on something other than the near complete lack of reliable sources about this living person. I've got no ulterior motive here. Nick-D (talk) 10:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for stating you have no ulterior motive¸-- even though I don`t think anyone has stated or implied you have an ulterior motive.  ::::: What I think your nomination did, and your subsequent comments, is to ignore the clear surface meaning of WP:Notability (people)#Politicians -- which distinguishes between NATIONAL office holders and LOCAL office holders. It states LOCAL officials have to match “the primary notability criterion of ‘significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article’ ” -- and that NATIONAL officials don`t. As I noted in this comment if we weren`t going to recognize that when RS confirm someone held a NATIONAL office they were inherently notable there would be no reason for WP:BIO to have a Politicians section at all. IF WP:POLITICIAN wasn`t establishing an exemption for NATIONAL office holders then those articles would be no different from articles on ordinary BLP. But WP:POLITICIAN does establish more relaxed criteria for articles on NATIONAL office holders. You may not like what the guideline says. Well, there are things you can do about that.
If you think the closing administrator should exercise IAR, then shouldn`t you explain why?
Have you considered trying to explain at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) why you think WP:POLITICIAN should be amended? Geo Swan (talk) 11:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is we don't believe that the United States Court of Military Commission Review counts under WP:POLITICIAN - it's a military court, not a national one. - The Bushranger One ping only 15:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not here to 'counter the establishment'. Wikipedia is here to be an encyclopedia - of notable subjects - and David Conn is not notable by Wikipedia policy, not some vague conspiracy by the cabal. I find your lack of WP:AGF disturbing- The Bushranger One ping only 06:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification -- are you acknowledging that WP:Notability (people)#Politicians aka WP:POLITICIAN trumps the advice in WP:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide#People aka WP:SOLDIER. Are you arguing that the guideline WP:Notability (people) is contradicted by an official policy? If so, could you please cite the policy, and quote the relevant passages? Geo Swan (talk) 09:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. WP:COMMONSENSE. As a member of a military, not national, court, Conn doesn't pass WP:POLITICANS. - The Bushranger One ping only 15:41, 24 June 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Conn_(judge)&oldid=1137768651"