Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Halverson

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. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 20:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Halverson[edit]

A WP:BLP nightmare: Non-notable person whose only claim to notability is that she's been involved in a disciplinary action over her work as a judge (in a minor US court), with a some negative coverage in local media. The fact that judges in Nevada are elected for office unfortunately causes much of her personal information to be public, so there are plenty of "reliable sources" around – but no notability that I can see. This article serves no other purpose than mud-slinging. It is precisely the kind of topic that Wikipedia really, really should have no business dealing with. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just editing the article because I followed a talk page entry, and was intrigued. Meh, it's either way as far as notability goes. The only thing notable about her is the accusations imo. I'd also like to note that I hadn't heard of her until I saw the article. I think that we can do the article and follow neutrality easily, using WP:Policy. Although it appears there are editors who are personally involved with the case... I think I can, with policy on my side, create a neutral article. But really, I don't care, I was just intrigued. I won't stand in the way of deletion, that's for sure! Beam 16:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not personally involved in the "case", I just object to your additions of POV style writing. Proxy User (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place for your baseless accusations. Please goto the talk page and defend your accusations, instead of repeating them in places not meant for such pettiness. Beam 17:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief! You made a baseless accusation against me above and now pretend to chide me for the same thing? What balls! You need to calm down. This is not the place for you to attack me, my Talk Page would be more appropriate. Proxy User (talk) 19:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, don't fight with each other here. You're both decent, fair-minded Wikipedia editors, no reason to throw accusations around. Just say here if and why you want the article deleted, and be done with it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are no BLP issues, the article is well sourced, and doesn't contain libel. The behavior in the censure runs over several years. I would say judicial misconduct subjects are a worthy topic. Notability doesnt mean the best or the fastest, or the smartest. It just means that mainstream, reliable media has taken notice of you. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I think there is no reason that this person should not have a Wiki bio, certain editors wish to make it into a POV soapbox. Serious WP:COATRACK issues. Proxy User (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak deleteHas some WP:BLP and WP:COATRACK issues. A judge at this level generally would not have a Wikipedia article. I feel this does count as "one incident" since the previous every teacher, or every doctor who gets some disciplinary hearing. Edison (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Her judicial position doesn't make her notable, and this incident doesn't seem to me to have lasting signficance. The article appears to exist mainly to embarrass her, which is a problem per WP:BLP, and I don't think her notability is great enough for us to need an article about her. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doubtful that a judge at this level would normally achieve notability, and none is shown other than for this scandal. We're not a judicial misconduct database. (And I'm starting to question the whole point of electing judges anyway, which practically no other country does. This is partly why, I imagine.) --Dhartung | Talk 21:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator and Dhartung seem to be arguing that she shouldn't be notable because Nevada shouldn't elect judges. I'm sure she's gotten more press coverage than she would have if her position were appointive, but the question for us is whether she is notable, not whether Nevada should change its laws or whether the mass media frequently pay too much attention to scandal while ignoring more important topics. JamesMLane t c 21:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Uhm, no, that is not what I said. My point was that the election and judicial documentation system create an artificial impression of notability, owing to the technical availability of public information, which however stands in no proportion to "notability" in the true sense, i.e. a well-documented public perception of importance beyond that short-term issue of gossip and mudslinging. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:51, 28 May 2008 (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.