Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe M. Bonaventure Jr.

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. Consensus is that this level of the judiciary is not inherently notable. Kevin (talk) 23:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joe M. Bonaventure Jr.[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete as non-notable and clear case of WP:BLP#1E. Bonaventure is a lower state court judge only worthy of note for his role in the early stages of the O. J. Simpson Las Vegas robbery case, which does not merit him a separate article. postdlf (talk) 16:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Just a guy doing his job. The fact that O.J. is mentioned in the first sentence is a clue to this, as others have said. Northwestgnome (talk) 02:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, simply being a justice of the peace doesn't make one notable, and there's no evidence that this guy has done anything that would make him notable for some other reason. Nyttend (talk) 01:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - being a JP certainly isn't notable but if you read on you'll see he then became a Judge. Might not change your opinion, but I thought it was worth checking your opinion is based on the correct facts. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:BLP1E. Joe Chill (talk) 02:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per an argument that I can't source to policy, but I personally feel that verifiable members of the Bench (as this judge is) are rare enough and influential enough to be considered inherently notable, in much the same way as WP:ATHLETE treats professional athletes. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you think the rationale for presuming professional athletes to be notable applies to even the lowest state court judges? Professional athletes are necessarily documented in secondary sources because of pervasive reporting and statistics keeping of professional sports. Can you say this is true of state court trial judges? They are not influential as a rule because they do not establish precedent like appellate court judges, and most of the time they do not even issue full written opinions. postdlf (talk) 14:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I found the policy citation - WP:POLITICIAN criterion #1 - "People who have held international, national or first-level sub-national political office, including members of a legislature and judges." State court judge is, if I understand the American judicial system correctly, first-level sub-national. Providing he is verifiably a state court trial judge (which he is), he's notable. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Only judges on a state's supreme court would be first-level sub-national politicians, not simply any judge. postdlf (talk) 23:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - For reference, every judge under the American and English systems establishes precedent, it's just that appellate courts establish a higher level of precedent. And like every judge, they're bound to issue written opinions on request, and in trials will indeed usually issue those opinions. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:48, 4 November 2009 (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.