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 keep. no real chance of being deleted... no need to leave the turkey on the article for 2 more days. W.marsh 13:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Seidlin[edit]

Larry Seidlin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non-notable. Aside from presiding over a few minor hearings in the Anna Nicole Smith case, he has not done anything to merit notability more so than any other Florida Circuit Court Judge. Hallibrah 03:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Why would anyone even consider removing a newsmaker. ~User:mikedowUser_talk:mikedow 03:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. He has had massive exposure, there are countless reliable sources discussing him, he is certainly notable as far as Wikipedia's standards are concerned. ~Rangeley (talk) 03:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep due to the media coverage about him, rather than about the case in which he was presiding. Not a valid Speedy case, though. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is enough material covering the subject to pass the notability guidelines. Leebo⁸⁶ 03:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Certainly fails the 100 years test, but should probably stay around for now as it is relevant to current events. --Selket ^Talk 03:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which is under the disclaimer "The following are proposed criteria for notability, which have not necessarily received consensus support". --W.marsh 03:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment on Comment. If that's the case (and I tend to agree with your theme) when DO we eventually delete it? When the furore dies down, or do we have a set time? I say skip all the politicking and just delete this thing now! Thanks for your time and advice, Hallibrah 03:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Notability is generally permanent, as if a topic has once met the notability criterion, the sources which demonstrate notability continue to satisfy the criterion over time. Kyra_~(talk) 03:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as satisfying the primary notability criterion; the subject of the article has been the subject of multiple, independent, reliable, published works, namely Fox News, ABC, and the BBC just to name three of the references. Kyra_~(talk) 03:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Clearly meets WP:BIO, quite possibly without the Anna Nicole thing even (I know they love to write newspaper stories about the state judges here). Suggest a speedy close of this if no one but the nom wants to delete. --W.marsh 03:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now In paper encyclopedias, the practice is to go through and get rid of topical articles that are no longer of interest after a while. Wikipedia may eventually want to do the same. In 20 years, no one will care about this guy one whit, except as a footnote to the convoluted story of a minor celebrity of the 2000s. Brianyoumans 04:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Question Where can I find the 100 years test and debate its lack of merit? An encyclopedia is a reference: the whole point is that it preserves knowledge. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richard Daly (talk • contribs) 06:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Response: WP:BIO#Proposed alternative criteria: "100 year test (future speculation) -- In 100 years time will anyone without a direct connection to the individual find the article useful?"
• Keep he is an important figure in current events (ie anna nicole battle) it should be kept, their is enough info on his page to keep. Mcoop06 06:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now He may get what he obviously wants, a show on tv, at whuch point his cultural significance, however distasteful or peculiar would, I think warrant his retention - if nothing comes of his endeavour - I'd say flush him as quick as we can! Stevingtonian 12:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete His exposure is far from "massive," and is generally limited to a few internet articles and as a chuckle-worthy piece on the Jay Leno show, in my opinion not notable. If he does get a TV show, he might merit a place in wikipedia, but a Lower Court Judge in Florida who has presided over one notable case, and made no landmark decisions is not worthy of inclusion. I seem to be in a two-person minority in this opinion but, whatever. Thethinredline 13:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not at all limited to that... he has been given massive coverage on TV, and you would probably be hard pressed to find an article on the trial that didnt mention him, whether it be CNN or the BBC. It is anything but limited to a few articles... ~Rangeley (talk) 13:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well the BBC article you mention proves my point, it doesn't cover Judge Seidlin at all, it mentions him. Does that make him somehow more 'notable' than just being a jurist presising over a case? I suppose some people might consider that to be so, but i am not one of them.

Also to say the coverage is massive is first of all subjective: I believe the coverage of the death of Saddam Huissein was "massive," not this story. Also to make any kind of statement about comprehensive coverage being given to this is also I would say, very US-centric. Thethinredline 17:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as much as I'd like this whole fucking mess to go back to the supermarket tabloids where it belongs, you can't deny that Judge Seidlin has become a lightening rod for debate and discussion. To me this is the entire point to having wikipedia: whats the harm in including just about anything as long as the article itself follows wiki policy and there is even a slight case of notability? RoyBatty42 19:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Like it or not, this guy is now a widely-known celebrity. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep One of Wikipedia's strengths is its responsiveness to current events. Otherwise I'd go back to using stodgy old bartleby.com. Gusuku 23:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because of BLP and N problems. One case does not make a judge notable.DGG 02:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and I agree with Kyra that notability (for our purposes) doesn't fade. JamesMLane t c 06:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Easily meets WP:BIO. - Denny 06:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, definitely notable. Everyking 08:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now, for the same reasons that Stevingtonian mentioned; that aside, if he doesn't get that television show he's clamoring for, it certainly won't pass the 100 years test. --PeanutCheeseBar 13:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets WP:BIO, not everything in wikipedia is related to rocket science, nuclear physics or world peace --rogerd 17:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Why be so persnickety about what stays or doesn't? Sheesh! ~User:dwaconUser_talk:dwacon 03:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep either bad faith nom or someone who doesn't understand the criteria. Clearly the product of multiple non-trivial works. Quadzilla99 19:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - judges probably merit a brief page anyway, and this is news. Classic test - was reading an article on law.com about the case and turned to wikipedia to find out about the judge. Wikipedia serves its function. BYF
• Weak Delete Otherwise nonnotable judge who cried in front of the cameras in his 15 minutes in the spotlight, thereby getting trivial mention in articles about the case. Wikipdeia is not a tabloid newspaper. See WP:NOTNEWS, a proposed guide for news stories not always justifying articles. Inkpaduta 23:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• ""Keep Keep Keep"" This man was a major palyer in an event that captivated the attention of celebrity gossip if Kevin Federline and Lance Ito get an article than so should Larry Seidlin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.185.36 (talk • contribs)
• Keep There is enough material covering the subject to pass the notability guidelines. Bnguyen 05:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes notability guidlines. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notability established. Google news search come back with over 6000 hits like [(unreliable source - do not use) www.postchronicle.com/news/original/article_21265702.shtml this] and this, which are about Larry Seidlen, not just ANS. - Peregrine Fisher 07:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think somebody confused what and who should be news worthy, and what's worth having on wikipedia. I don't think this guy should be in the news so much, but since he is, he's notable enough to pass the requirements for wiki. Prgrmr@wrk 02:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep JimmyTrump79 21:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This was not merely a trial about a dead body, this was a trial about a woman who has been shrouded in controversy for over a decade. This stub deserves to remain on Wikipedia simply because the news covered the trial due to it falling within the public interest - the trial, and especially Judge Seidlin, captivated the nation for a week straight. With this in mind, I believe it should remain on the site. Punchyourself187 20:13, 28 February 2007 (EST)
• Keep This article meets the primary criteria for being a notable person. You don't spread knowledge by deleting information. --JHP 07:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per pretty much, well, everyone. RFerreira 07:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]