Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Lundsten

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:47, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Lundsten

[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)

Fails WP:JUDGE. Note- Wisconsin Court of Appeals isn't a state wide position. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing against my fellow cheesehead, but this is a lower-level judicial position, and there's no actual notability here, as demonstrated by the sources which had to be stretched to in order to source this article. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have been persuaded by the argument that judges are only notable if they are federal judges or hold state wide postions, with the only exception being those who get large amounts of coverage in other ways.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 August 24
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:11, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the barely articulated rationale here is not sufficient for deletion. The notability guidance referenced in earlier comments are not the minimum standard for an article to be retained (otherwise half of Wikipedia would be deleted)—they're standards to confer automatic notability. Failure to meet those automatic notability standards would not make an article automatically "not notable". In fact, WP:USCJN states that membership on a state appellate court is "strong evidence of notability." Additionally, from Wikipedia's editor policy on deletion considerations for notability: "The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth." Simply put, the burden of proof in deletion discussion is on those seeking to delete the article. The only review that seems to have been done here was a quick determination that the judge is not elected by a state-wide vote and the article does not in its present form demonstrate notability -- that is not sufficient work on the part of deletion advocates for their rationale to prevail. There has been no effort on the part of deletion-votes to research news or legal journals which could substantiate the relevance of the article. Furthermore, the "state-wide judge" guidance is being badly misapplied here—at least in Wisconsin, all published Appeals Court rulings have statewide effect and create statewide precedent, even though the judges are elected in four geographic regions for administrative purposes. Only a fraction of their decisions are ever reviewed by the state supreme court. The Appeals court is effectively the court of final review for more than 90% of cases in the state. There's a vast difference between circuit judges, which are more like county officers, and appeals judges, whose decisions (in a simple 3-judge panel) can alter state law. As a general rule every judge of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals is at least as notable as any Wisconsin state senator (1 of 33) or assemblymember (1 of 99), whose notability is simply presumed due to their membership in a state legislative body. In U.S. media and politics there is a massive inclination to consider the role of legislators and ignore the role of judges in setting our laws and rights in this country -- the lack of good and reliable information and attention on judges has been a disservice to the public and Wikipedia should not encourage this pattern of lazy neglect. --Asdasdasdff (talk) 16:14, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Marginally passes general notability anyway. Besides, agree with User:Asdasdasdff. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Asdasdasdff and Robert McClenon cut and pasted the same exact keep vote comments in 6 other AfDs and it's pretty clear neither of them actually looked into any of them or even read what the delete voters wrote. Especially Asdasdasdff. As such, both their votes should be ignored. Especially Asdasdasdff. Like Asdasdasdff says Wikipedia should not encourage this pattern of lazy neglect. The pattern of lazy neglect it shouldn't be encouraging is them cutting and pasting the exact same comment in a bunch of AfDs instead of doing actual research. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- From Wikipedia's deletion guidance, the point of AfD is to put the burden on deletion-requestors to justify with their own research that the article is insignificant or redundant. All of these judicial AfD deletion votes failed to demonstrate the required work to validate the opinion that the article merited deletion. Each deletion AfD demonstrates the same flawed rationale for deletion in almost identical wording. I don't see any reason to rewrite the same explanation six times for six improper deletion requests that all suffer from an identical defect in the justification for deletion. --Asdasdasdff (talk) 21:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your simply wrong about that. WP:DISCUSSAFD says "AfDs are a place for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies." That's it, period. The nominator, and voters, can use whatever rational they feel like as part of that discussion and it's not confined to just the notability guidelines. That's simply one of multiple criteria. You didn't confine your comment to just the nominator anyway. You said in most, or all, of the AfDs that everyone who voted keep was just lazy and didn't do the proper diligence. Which is clearly bullshit because I said in more then one of the AfDs where I voted that I couldn't find sources that would pass WP:GNG. Which you seem to have ignored. Not that it would have mattered though. Since like I said there's zero mandate that an AfD involve the notability guidelines. So, clearly your votes are garbage and should be disregarded. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me adjusting the bulleting for clarity. Anyhow. Sorry I don't know the shorthand link, but it's here: Wikipedia:Guide to deletion under Considerations. "First do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself, and invite discussion on the talk page by using the {{notability}} template, if you are disputing the notability of an article's subject. The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth. See WP:Before." I added the bolding at the end. But this is a secondary consideration anyway. The core point is these are statewide judges who meet WP:JUDGE -- the point of being statewide is clearly for their effect and not their electorate. The Wisconsin Supreme Court used to be elected in regional districts; the Wisconsin Legislature has several times proposed returning to a regionally-elected Supreme Court. That does not make them "not statewide judges". --Asdasdasdff (talk) 22:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel L. LaRocque" i said in my delete vote "Delete since he wasn't in a state wide position and there isn't multiple in-depth reliable sources about him anyway." Yet you still said "There has been no effort on the part of deletion-votes to research news or legal journals which could substantiate the relevance of the article." So, you have no leg to stand on quoting part of guideline that your ignoring instances of people following. As far as WP:JUDGE goes, if they are not elected state wide and remain in their jurisdictions then they aren't "state judges." Notice here that the article says "He served on the Wisconsin Court of Appeals for the Madison-based District IV court from 2000 until his retirement in 2019." Wisconsin_Court_of_Appeals states "The Wisconsin Court of Appeals is an intermediate appellate court." For him to count it would have to be the state supreme court, not a district one, and one where the duties are done at the actual state level. Not an intermediate district one. Same goes for the other AfDs your arguing about. Personally, I could really give a crap about any of them outside of the fact that WP:JUDGE says "Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office" and a district position (again its what the damn Wikipedia article says they are) isn't a "state-wide office." He only rules for his district, that's where was elected, etc etc. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, but if you didn't find good sources about LaRocque you were not really looking. I did a quick search and found several. I will be getting to his update eventually. But I'm only one human with limited hours and other responsibilities. --Asdasdasdff (talk) 07:52, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

People find different sources sometimes. It's just how this works. So get over it. If your time is so limited maybe you shouldn't be wasting it WP:BLUDGEONing AfDs like you've been doing. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:50, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"People find different sources sometimes" -- Which is why you don't get to delete an article on a whim when one person claims they "checked." --Asdasdasdff (talk) 09:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Know one here said anyone did. The whole point in an AfD is to not delete things on a single persons whim. Apparently you don't even know simple basics like what the point the in an AfD is. So, like I said get it over it and stop WP:BLUDGEONing AfDs. At this point your just committing WP:BADGER. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No case made for deletion. By policy/guideline, simply holding the position is strong evidence of notability. No evidence to the contrary has been proffered. Strong evidence weighted against none must result in a keep outcome. Moreover, despite the blathering of editors who want to delete this article, there is further evidence of notability. The subject served on the court for nineteen years. One would have to be remarkably innocent of knowledge of the US judicial system to believe that a judge could sit this long at this level without making decisions receiving press coverage and writing opinions that are reviewed, discussed, critiqued, etc. No doubt there are a small percentage of judges on this court who have insignificant tenures -- my home state was once notorious for promoting judges approaching imminent retirement to appellate level, whereupon they promptly took "senior" status, thereby boosting their retirement pay without more than token service on the court they were appointed to. This is not such a case.

A couple of my local county judges have been in their positions for at least 19 years. By your standard they should articles about them also. Anyway, last I checked WP:JUDGE doesn't say anything about length of tenor. Nor does WP:GNG. It does say "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability." So, it seems your one that's blathering. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Learn to read, Adamant1. I stated explicitly that the argument applied to judges "at this level" -- that is, top-tier intermediate appellate courts. It doesn't apply to your obviously excluded example, any more than it applies to zookeepers. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 01:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's my lack of reading comprehension, but I don't see how a position can be top-tier and intermediate at the same time. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He's referencing WP:USCJN section on appellate judges -- "judges who serve for a comparatively long time, who preside over important cases, or whose opinions are often cited by higher courts in the state, by federal courts, or by state courts in other states, are highly likely to be notable." --Asdasdasdff (talk) 07:52, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"highly likely to be notable" doesn't mean they automatically are though. They still need to pass the notability guidelines or it wouldn't be phrased that way. Also, it's extremely questionable that serving for 9 years is a "comparatively long time." Not to mention "comparatively" is pretty relative. That said, Wikiprojects and whatever standards they might or might not have aren't guidelines or authoritative in AfDs anyway. Especially when compared to WP:GNG. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The point of AfD is that there is a large gap between "automatically notable" and "not notable". WP:GNG itself says an article is not required to meet GNG if it meets criteria related to that subject matter area, and refers to Wikipedia:Notability (people) which refers you to WP:USCJN, which gives you several reasons to indicate these judges are "highly likely to be notable." Articles that fulfill criteria for "strong evidence of notability" and "highly likely to be notable" should clearly result in a decision to conduct further investigation and article-building rather than deletion. --Asdasdasdff (talk) 08:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So WP:USCJN is cool to use even though it's not a guideline because it's mentioned in passing by something that's mentioned in passing by something else? right. If the "guidelines" in WP:USCJN where authoritative at all they would just be in WP:JUDGE, but they aren't though. You can find anything three steps away from guidelines to support whatever you want. They still aren't guidelines though. Anyway, what "strong evidence of notability" does this person or any of the other AfDs about judges that you voted in have, because you haven't given any. Except that they are a judge and "articles about judges are notable because they are judges" is circular reasoning that isn't supported by of the guidelines or even WP:USCJN. And I mean it in Wikipedia's standards for strong evidence. Not some thing about the history of judges in Wisconsin or whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:55, 12 September 2020 (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.