Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel L. LaRocque

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 no consensus. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel L. LaRocque (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:JUDGE. Note- Wisconsin Court of Appeals isn't a state wide position. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Royalbroil 19:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since he wasn't in a state wide position and there isn't multiple in-depth reliable sources about him anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete His position is not state wide. I am having some misgivings about this application, because it is going to treat as notable judges with in some ways less impact in very small states, and non-notable judges with more impact in much larger states, but I cannot see a way to treat all judges in everything named an appeals court as notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:14, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the barely articulated rationale here is not sufficient for deletion. The notability guidance referenced in earlier comments are not the minimum standard for an article to be retained (otherwise half of Wikipedia would be deleted)—they're standards to confer automatic notability. Failure to meet those automatic notability standards would not make an article automatically "not notable". In fact, WP:USCJN states that membership on a state appellate court is "strong evidence of notability." Additionally, from Wikipedia's editor policy on deletion considerations for notability: "The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth." Simply put, the burden of proof in deletion discussion is on those seeking to delete the article. The only review that seems to have been done here was a quick determination that the judge is not elected by a state-wide vote and the article does not in its present form contain "in-depth reliable sources" -- that is not sufficient work on the part of deletion advocates for their rationale to prevail. There has been no effort on the part of deletion-votes to research news or legal journals which could substantiate the relevance of the article. Furthermore, the "state-wide judge" guidance is being badly misapplied here—at least in Wisconsin, all published Appeals Court rulings have statewide effect and create statewide precedent, even though the judges are elected in four geographic regions for administrative purposes. Only a fraction of their decisions are ever reviewed by the state supreme court. The Appeals court is effectively the court of final review for more than 90% of cases in the state. There's a vast difference between circuit judges, which are more like county officers, and appeals judges, whose decisions (in a simple 3-judge panel) can alter state law. As a general rule every judge of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals is at least as notable as any Wisconsin state senator (1 of 33) or assemblymember (1 of 99), whose notability is simply presumed due to their membership in a state legislative body. In U.S. media and politics there is a massive inclination to consider the role of legislators and ignore the role of judges in setting our laws and rights in this country -- the lack of good and reliable information and attention on judges has been a disservice to the public and Wikipedia should not encourage this pattern of lazy neglect. --Asdasdasdff (talk) 16:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep as per general notability and the above argument by User:Asdasdasdff. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Weirdly Asdasdasdff just cut and pasted the same exact word for word keep vote comment about how none of the delete voters did any research etc etc into 6 other AfDs on similar subjects and Robert McClenon seems to have voted keep right after them with extremely similar keep rational (because of what Asdasdasdff says) in all of them. Given the mass cut and past screed of personal attacks on keep voters by Asdasdasdff that clearly shows the user didn't actually look into any of the AfDs where he voted or even read what the keep voters wrote in any of them I think his vote should be ignored. Robert McClenon's should probably also be. Since it's clearly based on bullshit and the same vote comment was posted everywhere. So, it's extremely doubtful they looked into any of the articles they voted keep on either. Personally, I said in my vote that I couldn't find any in-depth coverage on the person. Despite Asdasdasdff saying I was just lazy and didn't look. To echo what Asdasdasdff Wikipedia should not encourage this pattern of lazy neglect, but the clear pattern of lazy neglect by them in the seven nominations they pasted the exact same lazy vote comment in. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment@Adamant1: Huh, explain to me why nominating all 6 AFDs with the rationale  

  Fails WP:JUDGE and and WP:USCJN. Note- Wisconsin Court of Appeals isn't a state wide position. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof?

  By your logic, the nominator's vote should not count. Techie3 (talk) 05:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Techie3: With respect to the fact that you deleted your comment, note that Asdasdasdff's comment wasn't confined to just William, is the complaint department really on the roof?, it was addressed to every delete voter, or maybe I wouldn't have had as much of a problem with it. That said, per WP:DISCUSSAFD "AfDs are a place for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies." It's not explicit in that the only guideline that can be discussed is WP:GNG or that the only talking point we can use when discussion if an article is "able to meet Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies" is notability. Also note that WP:BEFORE says "If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources." The nominator wasn't arguing the articles verifiability and again it's not the only thing that can be discussed. So, a WP:BEFORE wasn't necessary to the nomination, or for anyone votes to be valid. Let alone not "lazy." --Adamant1 (talk) 06:41, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to invite people to re-read my comment, because it seems there was difficulty with the last sentence. I was trying to rally the good sense of Wikipedians against the "lazy neglect" of the media and society. I did not in any part call the deletion-voters "lazy" or "negligent." I simply hold that their deletion nominations fail on the merits. That said, it's extremely offensive to me that I am now being called "lazy" after I've devoted so many thousands of hours to researching these (and many other Wisconsin judges, congressmen, mayors, state legislators, governors, elections, counties, municipalities, laws, court decisions..) for the purpose of developing their articles and preserving that knowledge -- digging through ancient newspapers and obscure books and journals to find nuggets of illumination or unexpected connections for the random Wikipedia reader. Sitting in an AfD is not how I want to be spending my Wikipedia hours between work and family and other obligations -- I'd rather be researching and building articles. But I decided I had to get involved here because I wanted to stop the injustice being done to this critical piece of knowledge about hugely influential officers of our state government. Sorry I re-used the same argument to respond to the same flawed deletion rationale. But I'd like an apology for the totally uncalled-for personal insult. --Asdasdasdff (talk) 21:58, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To quote what you said "there has been no effort on the part of deletion-votes to research news or legal journals which could substantiate the relevance of the article." "Wikipedia should not encourage this pattern of lazy neglect." The only way to interpret that is that your calling the keep voters lazy. Otherwise, there would be "this" in your comment about lazy neglect and you wouldn't have preempted it by saying that the keep voters didn't put any effort into their votes. I'm not apologizing for simply repeating your own words. Also, if you have better things to do with you time then do them. Everyone here has better things to do then read a bunch of cut and pasted personal screeds or respond to them. Including me. You even said you cut and pasted the exact same message in a bunch of AfDs because you didn't feel like taking the time to write individual ones. So, you have zero ground to stand on accusing other people of being lazy or negligent. Not that you would anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You see why we have to question your judgment on these deletion votes when you missed the entire context of the sentence. It was quite clear: "In U.S. media and politics there is a massive inclination to consider the role of legislators and ignore the role of judges in setting our laws and rights in this country ... Wikipedia should not encourage this pattern of lazy neglect." I'm sorry I must have confused you with s sentence that had multiple clauses, but that is the sentence. Your response to your misreading of my comment has been completely inflammatory with multiple violations of Wikipedia's community standards. --Asdasdasdff (talk) 22:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah right. It's utterly ridiculous and none nonsensical to claim your statement was saying that Wikipedia should deal "media and politics" laziness and neglect. Especially when you said before that the delete voters were being negligent with their votes. Nice try though. Feel free to report me if you think it's worth it and that I actually violated anything by calling you out for attacking delete voters. I could really give a crap and I totally stick by calling you out for attacking people. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. No case made for deletion. By policy/guideline, simply holding the position is strong evidence of notability. No evidence to the contrary has been proffered. Strong evidence weighted against none must result in a keep outcome. Moreover, despite the blathering of editors who want to delete this article, there is further evidence of notability. The subject served on the court for twelve years. One would have to be remarkably innocent of knowledge of the US judicial system to believe that a judge could sit this long at this level without making decisions receiving press coverage and writing opinions that are reviewed, discussed, critiqued, etc. No doubt there are a small percentage of judges on this court who have insignificant tenures -- my home state was once notorious for promoting judges approaching imminent retirement to appellate level, whereupon they promptly took "senior" status, thereby boosting their retirement pay without more than token service on the court they were appointed to. This is not such a case. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 03:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per my usual standards for judges. I note that he was elected twice in large districts. Bearian (talk) 12:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who is basing their keep vote on a random page in their user space should really have their vote ignored. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:21, 15 September 2020 (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.