Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L. Todd Burke

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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

L. Todd Burke[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)

Doesn't pass WP:JUDGE and none of the sources used appear to be reliable secondary sources. GPL93 (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added two references, and there are plenty more out there. GregJackP Boomer! 22:59, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:JUDGE allows for state level judges. robertsky (talk) 00:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUDGE doesn't cover sub-statewide level judges, such as state judicial districts or county-level judges, so this is more a question of whether of not the subject meets WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 00:26, 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]

No, but the discussion on notability at Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges/Notability states that state trial court judges for courts of general jurisdiction, which Burke is: "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." WP:JUDGE isn't the only criteria that we can look at. GregJackP Boomer! 04:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, but there still isn't really much that indicates notability. Of the sources used, one is a legal directory entry, which pretty much any practicing attorney can have (1); (2)followed by the homepage of the city of Wilmington, NC (No mention of Burke at all); A "find a DUI lawyer" website (3); (4) a PDF of a lawsuit, (5) a passing mention in a blog by the American Bar Association, (6) another passing mention about the same subject in the local newspaper; and (7) an entry in an alumni newsletter. These aren't the references necessary to establish notability in my opinion. I also brought up WP:JUDGE because it was specifically used as the reasoning for keeping the article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even check Google News/Books/etc? First, the ABA Journal webpage is not a "blog"--it is the web presence of a print magazine that is published monthly. He's listed in several books, such as Roslyn Muraskin, Key Correctional Issues 170 (2005) (covering a DUI case); numerous news articles; in a law review article, and so on. Second, you brought up WP:JUDGE in your original statement suggesting deletion, you didn't bring it up as a response. GregJackP Boomer! 05:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a Matter of fact I did and I didn't believe I found enough to establish notability. My apologies on the ABA newspage but at the end of the day it is still a passing mention. Best, GPL93 (talk) 10:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies WP:BIO, WP:JUDGE, WP:GNG, etc. and passes WP:V (links= [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], etc)--PATH SLOPU 05:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sources appear to meet WP:GNG as a state trial court judge. The ABA article only contains a passing mention about the subject in the article. The other articles do not show the nationalized or international coverage necessary to pass WP:JUDGE (The Washington Times link is to a picture of his courtroom [I presume] - and not about the subject). (Also see WP:POLOUTCOMES about local mayors as an equivalent [where judges, like mayors, are expected to receive routine coverage of their activities)). --Enos733 (talk) 16:20, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The discussion on this has died down and I'd like some more opinions on if this passes WP:JUDGE or not...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 07:17, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the request for more opinions, I think this subject does not pass WP:JUDGE (not a state judge) and does not pass WP:GNG either. Skirts⁸⁹ 11:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subject is not WP:GNG Lubbad85 (☎) 19:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:15, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Interesting guy for sure, but just not notable. Working in government after having politician parents (notability is not inherited) and giving out a quirky court sentence do not make this man pass WP:GNG or WP:JUDGE. He's an average local public figure, and none of the awards or honors he has received are significant. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:30, 28 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.