Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jane P. Gray

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. Randykitty (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jane P. Gray[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, the only sources used in the article are a newspaper endorsement, election results, and Gray's biography from her campaign website GPL93 (talk) 22:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:JUDGE does allow for state level judges, which the subject is/was (unclear on current tenure). I feel that the article needs to be worked on further, maybe to the level similar to Loretta Copeland Biggs, who is a current state district judge in N. Carolina as well. robertsky (talk) 00:14, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Robertsky: WP:JUDGE applies to statewide judges, such as state supreme courts, and not state district courts or county court judges. There Loretta Copeland Biggs is an appointed Federal district court judge and therefore automatically qualifies as notable, so they are not particularly similar cases either. While Gray could possibly qualify as notable under WP:GNG, I didn't find any coverage that indicated that she met notability standards. Best, GPL93 (talk) 00:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 00:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Delete local level judges are not default notable and the coverage does not show notability otherwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:JUDGE....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:15, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Robertsky - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A WP:JUDGE pass requires a state-level judgeship, not a district court at the county level, so there's no automatic free pass of our notability standards for judges in the absence of enough reliable source coverage to get her over WP:GNG in lieu. Bearcat (talk) 18:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Appears to pass WP:GNG (let me know if I'm making a technical error here) Lightning321 (talk) 04:21, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the evidence that she passes GNG? To be clear, GNG is not just "count the footnotes and keep anything that meets or exceeds two" — GNG also tests for the depth of how much a source is or isn't about her, the geographic range that the sourcing represents, and the context of what the person is getting coverage for. So no, if a person didn't hold a public office that constitutes an automatic pass of our inclusion criteria for public figures, then they don't automatically clear GNG just because they can show two or three hits from their own hometown local media — a county court judge could still clear GNG if you can write a really substantial article that cites dozens of distinct sources instead of just two or three, or if you can show evidence that they receive coverage that nationalizes significantly beyond where they would just be routinely expected to have some, but a person at that level of significance does not automatically pass GNG just because the article has three footnotes in it. Bearcat (talk) 20:02, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:JUDGE refers to state-level judges. There is very little evidence of any national or international RS coverage of the subject, and most of the local coverage about the subject is either WP:ROUTINE, of her rulings as a judge, or coverage about her 2010 run for the North Carolina Court of Appeals. --Enos733 (talk) 17:02, 22 April 2019 (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.