Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric L. Levinson

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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eric L. Levinson

[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)

Seems like his most notable judicial office was the North Carolina Superior Court, which doesn't seem like a notable enough office to warrant a Wikipedia page. The dearth of articles cited on this page makes me think he doesn't pass WP:GNG either. Also, this article is written like a biography or press release. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 01:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Law, Afghanistan, Iraq, Georgia (U.S. state), and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sat on the N.C. Court of Appeals and therefore meets WP:NPOL Jahaza (talk) 03:15, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:USCJN (an unofficial guidance essay, for clarity) Such judges are not inherently notable, but holding such a position is strong evidence of notability that can be established by other indicia of notability. Curbon7 (talk) 04:15, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
State court of appeals judges (that is, the level above the trial court and below the state's highest court) are not inherently notable based on being on a state court of appeals, as WP:USCJN says, but it's not that he sat on the court of appeals per se, but that in NC, the court of appeals is a state-wide elected office. By contrast, in NY, the judges at the equivalent level, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division are appointed from the judges elected locally to the NY trial court of general jurisdiction and do not hold a state-wide office. Jahaza (talk) 17:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would also point out that NPOL doesnt make anybody inherently notable, it just states that these are presumed notable and that we can expect to find WP:SIGCOV on these subjects. However, as I point out below, I could not find any SIGCOV in WP:RS about this person. Therefore we cannot write a reliable article about this person. --hroest 18:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A comment on "presumed notability" - this implies that given particular NPOL offices (parliamentarian etc), we assume SIGCOV exists. Unlike most other discussions of notability, where the burden for evidence of sourcing lies with those who would keep, with NPOL, presumed notability implies that the burden lies with those who seek to delete to indicate why the persumption should not apply. So, for example, it would be reasonable to argue that presumed notability should not apply to a 14th Century member of the English parliament, because all that we ever find about that person is a name and death date. That said, the other crucial aspect is whether the office itself satisfies NPOL. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 00:13, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 04:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~delete~~ he seems to fail WP:GNG. Furthermore, it is not clear to me that the North Carolina Court of Appeals is even a clear pass of NPOL of state/province–wide office since it seems to make that cut just barely as an intermediate appellate court that is subordinate to the North Carolina Supreme Court. Also even passing NPOL#1 doesnt make a subject inherently notable, only presumed to be notable, so they still have to pass WP:GNG and there should be WP:RS about them. But in this case I could really not find much coverage about the subject himself, all articles were trivial mentions except for one [1] but even this is a borderline case and clearly not in-depth coverage of him (a one paragraph bio copied from somewhere and a quote). However, one article that has non-trivial coverage is not enough. In conclusion, I am not sure that WP:NPOL#1 applies here and even if it does the subject still has to pass WP:GNG which he does not. --hroest 15:57, 9 November 2023 (UTC) -- change the vote to keep based on articles found below. --hroest 19:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that all articles are trivial mentions except that one. This Charlotte Observer article is entirely about his electoral race[2], there's a NY Times article[3] with brief followup[4], Goldsboro News-Argus on 2014 campaign[5], an article from 2007 about his resignation from the Court of Appeals for the job in Iraq[6], Greenville, NC newspaper article[7], a different local paper[8], newspaper endorsement[9], magazine article on spending in the 2014 race[10], Gaston Gazette[11], radio station report on 2014 election[12], The Appalachian[13] Jahaza (talk) 18:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, these are all non-trivial mentions but for some reason they did not show up in my Google / Google News search. Google has been removing news from Canadian searches recently, but that should not affect the NYT.--hroest 19:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most of this is routine electoral coverage. Remember that WP:1E says you can't be considered notable for running in one high-profile race. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:09, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with you if he lost and never held public office. However, he did win public office in 2002 in an state-wide election and there is an in-depth article about him about taking the job in Irak [14] so this is more than just 1E. --hroest 16:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ancestry.com has additional newspaper articles from when he was elected to the circuit court and from when he was elected to the N.C. Court of Appeals. Jahaza (talk) 22:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:NPOL by winning a statewide election to hold a seat on an appellate court. State historical societies and the state bar association publications should be checked for sourcing (when I've written articles on state appellate judges they have the best sourcing). In my experience, there is almost always enough sourcing to write a biography on someone who won a statewide election. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not quite convinced this is an NPOL pass, but based on sources identifed by Jaazah passes BASIC/GNG; clearly some problems with WP:PEACOCK, but AfD is not cleanup. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:33, 15 November 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.