Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Hruz

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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:40, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Hruz[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? 13:18, 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? 13:18, 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? 13:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wisconsin Court of Appeals judges are not eligible per WP:JUDGE (there was at least one similar case before).Less Unless (talk) 15:10, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we have decided that the multiple district Wisconsin Court of Appeals is not a level of judgeship that grants automatic notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 September 11 requested a relist of the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:15, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the rationale for deletion is insufficient and there was not enough attention/discussion on this original deletion nomination. The rationale listed is referring to six previous AfDs which were all subsequently resolved in favor of Keep. The core logic was that the judge's office did not confer automatic notability, however, the process didn't go through necessary steps to search out evidence of actual notability and instead relied upon what was present in the (admittedly under-developed) article and the existence of other recent AfDs. It's understandable why these would have been nominated for deletion since there were others also in that process, but those AfDs have now all been resolved in favor of Keep. I will further develop this article to demonstrate notability, but as a general rule, people should understand that the judges of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, while elected in one of four regional districts, create statewide precedent with their rulings and are therefore statewide officers, the same way that members of the state legislature (elected in regional districts, but acting with statewide effect) are notable statewide officers. And each of the judges, with an honest research effort, can be found to be significantly notable in state law. --Asdasdasdff (talk) 16:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per my usual standards for lawyers/jurists. He's gotten coverage for his political activity as much as being a judge. Bearian (talk) 00:05, 7 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.