Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Marrocco

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 23:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Marrocco

[edit]
Frank Marrocco (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)

Fails WP:BIO. No significant coverage in any source, and no secondary sources, despite being tagged from November 2014. mikeman67 (talk) 20:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From NRVE: However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. IOW, it's not enough to claim that sourcing is likely to exist; even if you don't add it all to the article in one shot, the onus is still on you to prove — not just assert, but "show your work here and now" prove — that a GNG-satisfying level of RS coverage does exist. As well, a WP:BLP is required to have at least one reliable source in it right off the top — but this has none, which means it was technically eligible (and still is) for an immediate WP:BLPPROD. Bearcat (talk) 00:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid that I disagree. NRVE also says that if coverage is likely to exist, deletion is per se not appropriate, whether that sourcing is produced or not. NRVE also says that if sourcing exists, it need not be directly cited at AfD. What that means is that I don't have to produce a webliography of sources that come up immediately in GNews, because asking me to do so would clearly be a time wasting tactic. Because if you want to see those, you need only click on the link at the top of this AfD, and it takes you straight to them. I haven't claimed that unspecified sources exist. I have claimed that specified sources exist in GNews, and I have told you exactly where to find them, and other sources are likely to exist because of the nature of the office (what I had in mind was biographies, law reports and other discussion of his judgements). What that passage you cited from NRVE is talking about is sources that are claimed to exist in cases where the nature of the topic (ie very trivial, obscure, etc, which this one isn't) makes it unlikely that any sources would exist. This, as a government source, is clearly a reliable source. As is this from the Law Society. So BLPPROD isn't available. James500 (talk) 03:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary sources exist about the subject. This story in the Ottawa Herald describes his temperament inside the courtroom. This article in the Law Times discusses him as a potential Supreme Court nominee chief justice of the court. --Enos733 (talk) 06:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, both of those sources fail to count as reliable sources. While there's no reason to doubt that they're accurate, what they aren't is either substantive — they contain no substantial information about him, but merely namecheck his existence in the process of being simple lists of names — or independent of the subject — they're the websites of organizations he's directly involved in, and thus don't establish notability. By similar tokens, the president of a company doesn't automatically qualify for a Wikipedia article just because he has an "our president" profile on the company's website — and the mayor of a city, even a large one whose mayoralty constitutes an automatic NPOL pass, still doesn't get to keep an article whose only source is a list of the city's mayors on the city's own website. To establish notability, a source has to be reliable and substantive and independent — a source which is one of those three things, but fails to be the other two, does not establish notability in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I would say that the second most senior judge of a province passes the notability bar by virtue of his position. Certainly passes WP:POLITICIAN: "...judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office..." Not a politician, of course, but unelected judges are still covered by that notability guideline. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I saw that too, but the expanded criteria in WP:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Politicians says nothing about judges, which suggests to me that this policy includes elected judges only. I could be wrong, though. I just have a hard time believing that every judge of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice is automatically notable. There are literally hundreds of Canadian judges in inferior/provincial courts. Of course the fact that he's an associate chief justice makes this a bit different. mikeman67 (talk) 15:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it was elected judges only it would discriminate in favour of American judges, which we try to avoid on Wikipedia. I didn't say every judge in Ontario was notable (there are well over 200 of them), and I don't think that's what holding sub-national office means in this instance (it's really phrased to include judges of American state supreme courts, which is only a tiny fraction of them, whereas all Canadian judges are judges of the provincial courts), but I think the second most senior one in the province certainly is. That, to me, is pure common sense. No policy or guideline is needed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JodyB talk 23:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a political position of note - I've been in so many discussions to eliminate content. We should have really good reasons to delete an article, not really good reasons to keep it. Just because we can delete an article, doesn't mean we have to. Best Regards,   Bfpage |leave a message  23:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 02:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Marrocco received some news coverage for being a lawyer in a high profile case (U.S. official trying to 'influence' case Bambi hearing told, appeared in The Toronto Star, August 8, 1991, Thursday, METRO EDITION). Additionally, his promotion to his current rank received media coverage (Bambi's man called to the bench, appeared in the The Globe and Mail (Canada) on November 9, 2005 Wednesday). He’s a high ranking judge, and he’s gotten a smattering of news coverage, so I’m voting keep. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Both of these, as well as many more potential sources, were found on LexisNexis. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:57, 14 April 2015 (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/Frank_Marrocco&oldid=1137858348"