Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judge Patrick Willis

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. This is based on the keep case becoming stronger over the course of the debate. Tyrenius 01:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judge Patrick Willis[edit]

Local judge who presided over a questionably notable trial. No references are given to suggest he's notable outside of the county he serves. Metros 21:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Should this article be kept, naming conventions should be considered. This should probably move to Patrick Willis (judge). Metros 18:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree! If the nominator will rescind his nomination, we can clear up that matter right now. Thanks. --Kevin Murray 18:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Avery trial was also covered by national news services, including MSNBC and Nancy Grace on CNN. Court TV planned to televise it, until it was determined that the trial would last six full weeks which would exceed the amount of time Court TV could devote to it. It was discussed at law schools outside the state of Wisconsin as a study in trial procedure.

In addition to this trial, Pat Willis has had a broad impact on the entire state of Wisconsin and the surrounding area due to his work with the carferry (S.S. Badger) and the Burger Boat company (which is known internationally, and has provided yachts for Middle Eastern royalty). He is recognized throughout the Midwest as an authority on trial procedures, and has been a noted speaker at judicial conferences. 19:07, 15 June 2007

Keep. There are at least 11,000 ghits on Judge Willis, so he is not entirely unknown. Article could use some fleshing out and citation. --Nonstopdrivel 00:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment but only 556 if you search for the string: "Patrick Willis" + Manitowic (see this result. A lot of the 11,000 seem to be unrelated to him (I'm assuming you used the string "Patrick Willis" + judge, yes? Metros 00:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's actually only 116 if you click through them all... - grubber 19:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Unconvinced Cite some sources and contact me for a keep vote. --Kevin Murray 13:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per comment above. - grubber 19:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What type of sources should be added? Initially there were links to outside and inside sources, but they were deleted. 13:20, 16 June 2007 Paprikaphd

That is bizzare that the nominator of the AfD removed the reference links; I put them back just now. The references are weak mostly pertaining to the one trial, but along with other references they could build notability. --Kevin Murray 23:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the references because they didn't seem like references at all. They just seemed like news articles that mentioned him, not so much as references. Going through them one by one...the first one proves he exists. The second, third, and fourth ones proves he presided over the Steven Avery trial. Nothing to prove he's notable. Also, the fourth one should be removed as blogs are not considered reliable sources per our standards. Also, another reason I removed the links was that it's excessive to have 3 links to the Steven Avery trial if the only comment about the trial in the article is: "Judge Willis recently presided over the highly publicized Steven Avery homicide trial." Metros 00:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metros, I agree with removing the blog, but the others seem appropriate to keep. Surely you were acting with good intentions, but it seems like nominators in AfD's should not be modifying the articles while "prosecuting" the notability -- it's kind of like two rights adding up to a wrong. I think that you'd be better off criticizing the references rather than removing them. --Kevin Murray 00:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To author: WP does not allow editors to write articles from their personal knowledge without providing verifiable citations to sources. This article can not stay in perpetuity without sources, although it seem premature to pull the plug without giving you time to provide citations. How do you know all of this about him? There must be some record of his accomplishments. --Kevin Murray 00:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everything in the article is true and verifiable, I'm working on getting sources. Some of them are harder to obtain because archived records are not available on line and I want to make sure the citations are accurate. I'm requesting that you give me a little time to fill in the blanks before deleting. I understand that I can't have unverified comments, and am in the process of sourcing them. --paprikaphd 08:13, 18 June 2007

Keep With the references to the trial and the State of Wisconsin site on judges, I'm convinced of the notability. But I do believe that more references should be obtained over time. --Kevin Murray 00:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What in those sources provided notability to him in your opinion? 1 simply listed his name in the registry of judges. 3 said he presided over a murder trial. Metros 00:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the judge in a notable trial I think that he beomes a legitimate person of interest. Readers of the article on the trial would have questions about him. Notability is defined in WP as being noticed, and he was by the significant press coverage. Once notability is established an article can be written using minor verifiable source material (Wisconsin site etc.); however, the references to most of the information in the article are lacking. But this is not a reason for deletion, but rather a reason for more research. --Kevin Murray 00:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Steven Avery. As the judge in a semi-notable trial, it is the trial, and not the judge, which is notable. This hideously conflates news coverage (and, relatedly, the mass reproduction of AP/Reuters spawned wire stories which produces absurd Ghit numbers) with encyclopedic content. Eusebeus 15:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rightly or wrongly Patrick Willis is all over the national news and prominently featured as doing this and doing that regarding the trial. This begs the question, who is Patrick Willis? It is our job at WP to answer those questions for our readers, if we can. Precedents exist in other trials such as Lance Ito from the OJ Simpson trial. I say when in doubt, what is the harm of inclusion to the benefit of our readership. This article would not have gotten to AfD in its current improved condition -- it is not a great article but it exceeds our minimum standards. --Kevin Murray 18:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has been improved since the deletion nomination, and now meets the WP:BIO criteria, and continues to have citations added on a daily basis since the article's creation. --paprikaphd 07:36, 19 June 2007

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.