Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ewing Werlein, Jr.

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. Davewild (talk) 08:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ewing Werlein, Jr.[edit]

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

A Federal judge who does not appear to rise to the levels of notability as outlined at WP:N and WP:BIO. There are sources about some court cases, but these appear to be routine reporting of routine court cases, and there isn't anything in particular about this judge which seems to make him notable. Jayron32 01:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per longstanding precedent, and the arduous work of Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges to create articles on all Article III federal judges. Werlein was appointed by President George H. W. Bush to a lifetime appointment to a position that is constitutionally coequal to that of a member of the United States Congress; this lifetime appointment was confirmed by a majority vote of the United States Senate. Werlein subsequently served as an active federal judge for a decade and a half, a position bestowing immense decision-making authority, including the power to decide the constitutionality of laws enacted by Congress and signed by the President. bd2412 T 18:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep. I think all Article III judges should be inherently notable. As BD2412 points out, it ain't easy to become a federal judge, and they have significant authority after becoming one, not to mention the very hard public work associated with service. I might also add that if we delete this article, we have a real problem with even federal appellate judges who may not have received significant secondary coverage. Should circuit judges also be deleted when that's true?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.BD2412 has added a significant number of cases that Werlein has been involved in, beefing up his notability independent of him "just being" a federal judge.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but that should be besides the point. Article III judges are inherently notable, just as members of Congress are inherently notable. A person appointed to a Congressional seat who dies three days later without ever taking a vote merits an article for having been a member of Congress. If the same thing had happened to Judge Werlein, he would still be inherently notable based on the importance of his post, and steps required to be taken by the President and the Senate to place him in that position. That being said, however, the vast majority of federal judges serve for many years and preside over countless cases, including at least some involving notorious crimes or civil claims running into the hundreds of millions of dollars. Ideally, we will eventually have such information for every judge in this encyclopedia. bd2412 T 22:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
  - I've already agreed with that point in my Keep !vote. One idea would be for the law project to add another task to its list (I'm sure you have plenty to do) to propose notability guidelines in this area and avoid AfDs.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Notability guidelines like these? ;-) bd2412 T 23:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
      - Heh, the worst part is I've seen those before and I think even commented on one small part, and just forgot. I'd crawl back into my hole if I could only remember where it is.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree, however, that we need to move that draft from proposal to policy. bd2412 T 23:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep. A U.S. federal judge of that stature is most certainly notable. --- Evans1982 (talk) 07:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per notability guidelines in Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges. Billyboy01 (talk) 15:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't know why this is even a question, Article III judge. Perhaps WP:POLITICIAN should be adjusted to make this more clear? --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 04:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think the reference to judges in WP:POLITICIAN is to those state judges who are elected as the guideline seems to be concerned only with elected officials. It's true that Article III judges go through a political process - and getting more politicized all the time - before being confirmed, but I don't think that makes them politicians.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why it says "politicians and judges" (emphasis added). I think they deal with all public officials together - having WP:POLITICIAN link to them is a matter of convenience. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 12:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Bbb23 - to the extent that any policy purports to cover politicians and judges, this grouping is awkward. A far more detailed policy draft dealing exclusively with judges is up for discussion at the United States courts and judges WikiProject. bd2412 T 14:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep As above, Article III judges are inherently notable. Safiel (talk) 03:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Request for the closing admin The talk page of this article was deleted when this page was previously prodded. The page was undeleted, however the talk page was not undeleted. Since this will obviously end as a keep, I request the talk page be undeleted. Safiel (talk) 03:18, 16 October 2011 (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.