Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donna Ryu

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. Subject fails WP:JUDGE and WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. What coverage does exist is almost entirely passing mentions in articles about cases that she's served on. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Ryu

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Delete per WP:USCJN - [Magistrate judges] are.. "not inherently notable" and per consensus at WP:Articles for deletion/Margaret J. Schneider Snickers2686 (talk) 22:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Snickers2686 (talk) 22:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Found some passing mentions about this person, but nothing more than that. Subject does not pass WP:JUDGE or WP:GNG. User:Let'srun 01:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - — Maile (talk) 03:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Maile66 why? JM (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
JM2023 are you asking because I didn't specify a reason? I did that deliberately, because I just didn't want to get into a round-robin discussion about "not inherently notable". Be that as it may, I think her overall body of work is impressive - at least, as far as the info given in this article. In particular, her work on behalf of "Coalition on Homelessness v. City and County of San Francisco". — Maile (talk) 23:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, perhaps that case should have the article, not the living person, per WP:BLP1E. Let'srun (talk) 14:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
indeed JM (talk) 19:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep the coverage in the Coalition on Homelessness case rises to the level of GNG. --Nouspleut (talk) 20:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC) — Nouspleut (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Slowking4 (talk · contribs). [reply]
I wonder if the case should have the article then. People notable for one event are not notable people. JM (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:43, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems that what's notable here is the Coalition on Homelessness case. JM (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Our criteria for notability in this instance is WP:JUDGE, not a prior deletion discussion. She is a long-serving judge in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. A significant number of judges serving in this court have a Wikipedia article, demonstrating that the Wikipedia community has decided this is a significant appointment. This article has sources to back its notability. Rublamb (talk) 15:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She is a magistrate judge, which is a much lesser role within the judiciary system and does not meet WP:JUDGE as she has never been a judge on a statewide court. To my knowledge, no other magistrate judges in this district have wikipedia articles, and even if they do, WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST applies. Let'srun (talk) 15:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there appear to be more than passing mentions about her work, in addition to the coverage of the Coalition on Homelessness case (I have added a few sources, more coverage is available); there is coverage of e.g. her decision on rent control for houseboats (KTVU, Nov 2023; East Bay Times, Nov 2023, "In a landmark decision by Chief Magistrate Judge Donna Ryu..."); Judge narrows privacy case against fintech firm Plaid (Reuters, May 2021); Judge gives Biden, Blinken 60 days to respond to Gaza ‘genocide’ claim (SF Chronicle, Nov. 2023, "Ryu, a magistrate appointed by the court’s judges, is assigned to the case, but either side could have her removed and replaced by a presidentially appointed federal judge."). And there is coverage such as "in 2010, U.S. District Court judges in San Francisco appointed Donna Ryu, a civil rights attorney and UC Hastings law professor, as a federal magistrate. No openly gay or lesbian judicial officer had ever served on the court." (SFGate, 2014, with further biographical information about Ryu). Beccaynr (talk) 01:04, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 01:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources and her accolades show notability DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 16:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think we have to evaluate this with NOTNEWS in mind, and in particular how news discussion of her rulings should be interpreted re: direct coverage of her and how routine it is. It is not unexpected for a magistrate judge's rulings to receive decent local coverage, but that doesn't mean it is encyclopedic info that is DUE in a biography. The importance of her role in particular would need to be discussed substantially for such reports on court cases to be SIGCOV, and I'm not seeing that so far. Simply presiding over a case does not mean the coverage of the case transitively applies to the person, not least because the facts/filings of a case, which are generally the bulk of reported material, are completely independent of the judge's actions.

JoelleJay (talk) 20:47, 20 December 2023 (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.