Paul C. Gartzke – Relisted. Sandstein 09:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Paul C. Gartzke (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) I did not create this article, and I may or may not have contributed to this article in the past (don't recall), but I've contributed to several Wisconsin-related and Wisconsin judge-related articles over the past several years and noticed this deletion as one of several deleted this month under application of the Notability standards. I'm referring specifically to judges on the Wisconsin Court of Appeals (current and former members have been deleted in this recent purge 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). It seems the same rationale is used for all of them -- that because they're elected in four regional districts they are not "statewide" and thus not significant judges. The regional divisions are for administrative purposes, but the rulings of the judges have statewide effect and precedent (only a fraction are ever appealed to the state supreme court). Maybe this is an issue with the way the current guidance prioritizes state legislators over state judges, but any individual judge of this court in Wisconsin has far more significance to the legal and political landscape of the state than any single member of our 99-member state assembly. Several other judges of this court (who were left undeleted) are former state legislators, whose legislative career was nowhere near as consequential as their time on the court, and that legislative service will factor as a mere footnote in their obituaries -- yet it is that relatively inconsequential legislative service that preserves their notability for the purpose of this site. Given the time to expand these articles, I'm confident that for each judge I could find a significant volume of news articles and legal journals detailing important or controversial opinions and their effects on the laws of the state and the rights of residents. For instance, I did a quick search on Gartzke and found important state precedents on free speech and assembly, parental rights, religious freedom, property rights, etc. Judge Nashold, who was elected last year, in her short service is already involved in critical litigation over voting rights for the 2020 election. Please undelete these pages so that I can prove their relevance to our history and our current affairs. --Asdasdasdff (talk) 20:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] EDIT to respond to the question from T. Canens, the intention with the request was to attempt to restore all six pages. Personally, my ideal scenario is that we work to update the WP:USCJN guidance to a blanket presumption of notability for this (appellate) class of state judges, the same way we presume notability for all state legislators. I think it's an important correction to Wikipedia's notability standards so that we're not erasing the vital role our state courts and judges play in defining our laws and rights. --Asdasdasdff (talk) 06:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and relist. These AfDs, some of which attracted as few as two !voters, have implications for potentially hundreds of other articles and would have benefited from broader participation by editors with subject-matter knowledge. A highly relevant, active wikiproject, WikiProject United States courts and judges, appears to have been unaware of the deletion discussions. The applicable specialist notability guideline, Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges/Notability#State court of appeals judges, was mentioned in passing but in most of the discussions its applicability was not addressed. (Background for non-specialists: As state-court caseloads grow larger, a majority of U.S. states now have a three-tiered judiciary with parallels to the U.S. federal system. See List of state intermediate appellate courts. In these systems, the intermediate appellate court, such as the one on which these judges sit or sat, or its New York equivalent the Appellate Division, is the court of final review in the vast majority of cases, just as is true of the United States Court of Appeals.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:27, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] Relist I am not certain one can equate the judges of the intermediate state courts of appeal with the immensely more important US court of appeal, but it needs a fuller discussion. (the judges of the highest court of appeals in each state asre unquestionably always notable-- in the sense that the next highest level for each of them is the same as the US court of appeals: the USSupreme Court) DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] With just two participants I do not think closure as delete was appropriate. It ought to have been relisted or soft-deleted. As such I would overturn, reclose as soft delete, and treat this as contesting that soft-deletion with the effect that the article is restored with the option, but not the obligation, to relist at AFD. Stifle (talk) 11:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] Relist While I think the page could be restored under WP:Soft delete, it is likely that the page will come back to AfD. --Enos733 (talk) 15:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] Is this DRV for just Paul C. Gartzke or all five AFDs referenced in the nom? T. Canens (talk) 02:41, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] Endorse own close for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer E. Nashold, which clearly has a quorum and the strength of arguments isn't close. T. Canens (talk) 13:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and relist Low participation and cursory delete !votes. Lightburst (talk) 22:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] Overturn. The delete arguments were not accurately based in policy. WP:USCJN states quite clearly that "holding such a position is strong evidence of notability", and none of the delete !votes made even a shred of an effort to refute that evidence. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 22:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] Note: This DRV raises some interesting meta-issues, which I have discussed in an essay, here. I would welcome any comments on its talkpage. My thanks to everyone here for a thought-provoking discussion. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] 'Overturn, as per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Do not relist, if some eitor wants to make a better AfD nomination in future, it could be discussed then. While such a position as a regional staste appeals judge does not, under the letter of our current guidelines, confer automatic notability, the guideline does say that that "holding such a position is strong evidence of notability". Neither of those favoring delete refuted this strong evidence, or even attempted to do so. The delete arguments alleged nothing but failure to fulfill a guideline that would confer automatic notability. This is not a sufficient reason for deletion, and remember that the burden is on those wishing to delete an article to establish a good reason for deletion. There was no discussion of the GNG or of actual sources. It may be that the guideline should be changed in light of this AfD. The essay linked above by Newyorkbrad is interesting in this regard. But that is for a different discussion. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and Relist as per above editors, and due to minimal participation, and to concerns about whether people in such positions should be considered notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I did not create this article, and I may or may not have contributed to this article in the past (don't recall), but I've contributed to several Wisconsin-related and Wisconsin judge-related articles over the past several years and noticed this deletion as one of several deleted this month under application of the Notability standards. I'm referring specifically to judges on the Wisconsin Court of Appeals (current and former members have been deleted in this recent purge 1, 2, 3, 4, 5).

It seems the same rationale is used for all of them -- that because they're elected in four regional districts they are not "statewide" and thus not significant judges. The regional divisions are for administrative purposes, but the rulings of the judges have statewide effect and precedent (only a fraction are ever appealed to the state supreme court). Maybe this is an issue with the way the current guidance prioritizes state legislators over state judges, but any individual judge of this court in Wisconsin has far more significance to the legal and political landscape of the state than any single member of our 99-member state assembly. Several other judges of this court (who were left undeleted) are former state legislators, whose legislative career was nowhere near as consequential as their time on the court, and that legislative service will factor as a mere footnote in their obituaries -- yet it is that relatively inconsequential legislative service that preserves their notability for the purpose of this site.

Given the time to expand these articles, I'm confident that for each judge I could find a significant volume of news articles and legal journals detailing important or controversial opinions and their effects on the laws of the state and the rights of residents. For instance, I did a quick search on Gartzke and found important state precedents on free speech and assembly, parental rights, religious freedom, property rights, etc. Judge Nashold, who was elected last year, in her short service is already involved in critical litigation over voting rights for the 2020 election.

Please undelete these pages so that I can prove their relevance to our history and our current affairs. --Asdasdasdff (talk) 20:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT to respond to the question from T. Canens, the intention with the request was to attempt to restore all six pages. Personally, my ideal scenario is that we work to update the WP:USCJN guidance to a blanket presumption of notability for this (appellate) class of state judges, the same way we presume notability for all state legislators. I think it's an important correction to Wikipedia's notability standards so that we're not erasing the vital role our state courts and judges play in defining our laws and rights. --Asdasdasdff (talk) 06:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and relist. These AfDs, some of which attracted as few as two !voters, have implications for potentially hundreds of other articles and would have benefited from broader participation by editors with subject-matter knowledge. A highly relevant, active wikiproject, WikiProject United States courts and judges, appears to have been unaware of the deletion discussions. The applicable specialist notability guideline, Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges/Notability#State court of appeals judges, was mentioned in passing but in most of the discussions its applicability was not addressed. (Background for non-specialists: As state-court caseloads grow larger, a majority of U.S. states now have a three-tiered judiciary with parallels to the U.S. federal system. See List of state intermediate appellate courts. In these systems, the intermediate appellate court, such as the one on which these judges sit or sat, or its New York equivalent the Appellate Division, is the court of final review in the vast majority of cases, just as is true of the United States Court of Appeals.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:27, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relist I am not certain one can equate the judges of the intermediate state courts of appeal with the immensely more important US court of appeal, but it needs a fuller discussion. (the judges of the highest court of appeals in each state asre unquestionably always notable-- in the sense that the next highest level for each of them is the same as the US court of appeals: the USSupreme Court) DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With just two participants I do not think closure as delete was appropriate. It ought to have been relisted or soft-deleted. As such I would overturn, reclose as soft delete, and treat this as contesting that soft-deletion with the effect that the article is restored with the option, but not the obligation, to relist at AFD. Stifle (talk) 11:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relist While I think the page could be restored under WP:Soft delete, it is likely that the page will come back to AfD. --Enos733 (talk) 15:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is this DRV for just Paul C. Gartzke or all five AFDs referenced in the nom? T. Canens (talk) 02:41, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse own close for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer E. Nashold, which clearly has a quorum and the strength of arguments isn't close. T. Canens (talk) 13:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist Low participation and cursory delete !votes. Lightburst (talk) 22:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. The delete arguments were not accurately based in policy. WP:USCJN states quite clearly that "holding such a position is strong evidence of notability", and none of the delete !votes made even a shred of an effort to refute that evidence. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 22:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This DRV raises some interesting meta-issues, which I have discussed in an essay, here. I would welcome any comments on its talkpage. My thanks to everyone here for a thought-provoking discussion. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
'Overturn, as per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Do not relist, if some eitor wants to make a better AfD nomination in future, it could be discussed then. While such a position as a regional staste appeals judge does not, under the letter of our current guidelines, confer automatic notability, the guideline does say that that "holding such a position is strong evidence of notability". Neither of those favoring delete refuted this strong evidence, or even attempted to do so. The delete arguments alleged nothing but failure to fulfill a guideline that would confer automatic notability. This is not a sufficient reason for deletion, and remember that the burden is on those wishing to delete an article to establish a good reason for deletion. There was no discussion of the GNG or of actual sources. It may be that the guideline should be changed in light of this AfD. The essay linked above by Newyorkbrad is interesting in this regard. But that is for a different discussion. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Relist as per above editors, and due to minimal participation, and to concerns about whether people in such positions should be considered notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.