Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William J. Meade

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 delete. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

William J. Meade

[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)

Contested PROD. Appellate judges are not inherently notable, per WP:USCJN. Otherwise fails WP:GNG as literally no sources that confer WP:SIGCOV exist (I originally created this article). Curbon7 (talk) 17:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Law, and Massachusetts. Curbon7 (talk) 17:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No SIGCOV out there; just the usual fleeting "Judge Meade ruled X" single sentences in news reports about other people and other cases, and few enough of those. Ravenswing 18:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agreed, non-notable judge. Oaktree b (talk) 19:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the reasons discussed in Point I of my essay here. I am pinging User:BD2412, who is the major contributor to articles about American judges, for his thoughts. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No one is claiming that judges at this level are inherently NOT notable; just that there is neither consensus nor broad support for the premise that they are. Even if they were -- and neither your personal opinion nor that of BD2412 constitutes such consensus -- articles on the same stand and fall on the GNG. I will flip my vote in a moment should you find significant coverage of the subject, beyond casual mentions in routine coverage of cases on which he happened to be the judge. Failing such coverage, he just doesn't merit an article. Ravenswing 19:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Newyorkbrad and Ravenswing: The appropriate notability guideline to apply in this case is WP:USCJN, which states of state appellate judges: "Such judges are not inherently notable, but holding such a position is strong evidence of notability that can be established by other indicia of notability. In particular, state courts of appeals 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". I would either want to see evidence of these factors, or sources indicating notability derived from extrajudicial teaching and publishing activities. BD2412 T 01:19, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Judges at the appellate level are not handed an automatic notability freebie just because they exist, but must be shown to pass WP:GNG on significant reliable source coverage about them and their work to clear the inclusion bar. Bearcat (talk) 19:23, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to his official biography on the Massachusetts government website, he was a seminar lecturer and coordinator of a clinical program at Harvard Law School from 2000 to 2003 and editor-in-chief of the Massachusetts Law Review (a co-curricular organization that publishes a student-reviewed law journal) from 2003 to 2006. COULD he qualify under Wikipedia:Notability (academics) if anyone can confirm he meets this threshold with his judgeship being merely worthy of mention? For example, I found this University of Indiana symposium. This is not to imply the symposium itself is anything, but rather what inspired the idea. Without access to Law-specific databases I cannot vote one way or another.--Mpen320 (talk) 15:10, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:26, 7 June 2022 (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.