Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert D. Sundby

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert D. Sundby[edit]

[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 and and WP:USCJN. Note- Wisconsin Court of Appeals isn't a state wide position. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:22, 24 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? 13:22, 24 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? 13:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 05:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, not a state-wide position. Royal broil 01:13, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 September 11
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the rationale for deletion was insufficient and there was no meaningful discussion or investigation of the merits. The core rationale is that the judge's office did not confer automatic notability, however none of the necessary steps were taken to investigate whether evidence existed of actual notability -- the referenced WP:USCJN guidance states that holding such office (state appeals court) is strong evidence of notability, and guidance for article deletion states, "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." Additionally, there have been six other AfDs with near identical rationale that have been resolved recently in favor of Keep or No consensus. I will gladly further develop this article to demonstrate notability, as any judge who sits on this court has likely been significantly notable within state jurisprudence, media, and politics. --Asdasdasdff (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Third relist to allow further input after the most recent !vote and DRV.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, he passes WP:GNG, making the failure of WP:JUDGE irrelevant. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:39, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, As stated, he passes WP:GNG. 10 years as a judge, will in most all cases create reliable independent sources. JackFromReedsburg (talk) 17:45, 8 October 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.