Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don R. Sommerfeldt

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. Swarm we ♥ our hive 05:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don R. Sommerfeldt

Don R. Sommerfeldt (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)

No claim of notability made, one self-reference Garchy (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're mistaken, the Tax Court of Canada is a federal court with nationwide jurisdiction, composed of judges from all provinces of Canada, it's top level. Kraxler (talk) 13:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notable. As the Tax Court of Canada is a national court, he satisfies POLITICIAN by holding "national office". Sources indicate, however, that the informal procedure of the court is not precedent setting. James500 (talk) 20:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per John Lambert. The tax court does not hold the same status as the Canadian surpreme court or court of appeal. There is an absence of coverage to demonstrate WP:BIO is met. LibStar (talk) 23:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If this article actually contained substantive content about him, sourced to enough properly reliable sourcing to support it, then I'd be completely comfortable voting to keep on WP:GNG grounds regardless of any debate about whether the Tax Court is notable enough or not. But it doesn't — in its current form, all it consists of is a single sentence asserting his existence, resting on a single primary sourced confirmation on the court's own website. (And even that source just lists his name, without even giving him the standalone profile that some of the other judges have to provide more information about them beyond name, rank and serial number.) But that's not how any person ever gets a Wikipedia article — no Wikipedia inclusion guideline ever confers a notability freebie on anybody, regardless of the "inherent" notability of their office, until reliable, independent sources can be added to support the claim. I'm willing to revisit this if the sourcing and content can be beefed up well beyond where they're sitting right now — but in its existing form, there's just not enough substance, and not a whit of valid referencing, here. Bearcat (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually the rubric of BIO is that a judge who satisfies POLITICIAN, but not BASIC, must (it is not optional) be merged (not deleted) to an article on a broader topic, typically a list of judges of the court in question. James500 (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A redirect to the Tax Court's article, which is where the judges are listed rather than in a separate spinoff, would also be perfectly acceptable. But it still can't stay as a standalone BLP if this is the best we can do for sourcing or content about him or his role on the court. Bearcat (talk) 18:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's strange that the Tax Court's official website doesn't have a bio of Sommerfeldt, but it's undoubtedly reliable to verify that, yes, he does sit on the Tax Court. A brief bio, however, can be found here (a government announcement of his appointment) giving his educational and career background, so the article can clearly be expanded beyond one sentence (and an additional source here, though brief on Sommerfeldt himself). As I'm not familiar with the structure of Canadian courts, I'm trying to figure out what the analog in the U.S. would be: an Article III federal district court judge? Or an Article I judge on the U.S. Tax Court? He was appointed, but I don't know if he went through a confirmation process as would a U.S. federal judge (or if that matters). In the absence of a more definitive answer to the contrary, I'm leaning towards weak keep, but no matter what he'd be a valid redirect to Tax Court of Canada#Judges. postdlf (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge → Tax Court of Canada#Judges (=move the reference over to support this person sitting on the court) and convert article to a redirect; don't redirect talk page as this should have a wikiproject biography banner on it. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:52, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ceradon (talk • contribs) 07:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge, as per User:Ceyockey.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the Canada Tax Court is comparable to the United States Tax Court, both have federal jurisdiction and are composed of not too many judges. The subjrect passes WP:NPOL # 1 "Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office" (note that this guideline supersedes WP:GNG, sources are only neede to confirm the existence of the person and the office held, see also WP:POLOUTCOMES) The idea to merge any federal judges's bios into articles like List of judges of the United States Tax Court or even United States District Court for the Northern District of New York which all contain full lists of judges (all blue-linked) is ludicrous. Come on, you didn't arrive at Wikipedia yesterday, or did you? Kraxler (talk) 20:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - I don't have a problem with there being a separate article ... if the content supports it. A redirect is not a diminution of the person or role; it is a recognition of the amount of content available. The current content is "Don R. Sommerfeldt is a judge currently serving on the Tax Court of Canada." with an additional start date in an infobox. I think that it would be more appropriate to merge this content into the list than to have a standalone article. This does not prevent or even create a roadbump for back-converting the redirect to an article if more content should emerge supporting a true biographical article. At present, the only notable element for the person is his membership on the court - and that is the only information available in the article. That is the basis of my arguing for merge. Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    We do have articles about medieval archbishops, princes regnant and - I think - some U.S. Congressmen that have as little information. The pages stay because they are in a category that gets them a page. Its pretty tautological. And I take Ceyockey's point that such pages look almost silly. But I also suspect that they have the function that a new or newish editors with knowledge of a subject is perhaps more likely to add information to a page that already exists.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As noted above, we have more information available here, so we shouldn't just be looking at the current state of the article. postdlf (talk) 01:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added the info. Kraxler (talk) 03:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I would keep it open for now. It doesn't appear that there is a clear consensus of majority just yet, although it seems to be leaning towards keep. We're in no rush (it won't be deleted while this is open!), so I say we allow the discussion to continue as the votes are nearly even. Garchy (talk) 15:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember that AfD is WP:NOTAVOTE count election, it's based in argument considering guidelines and policy. The complete Biographical Directory of Federal Judges has been imported into Wikipedia on the strength of NPOL #1, many articles of which have the link to this directory as their only source. Nobody ever thought about nominating them for deletion. Maybe I should mention consistency and common sense here. Kraxler (talk) 18:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With the improvements made the page seems to fit WP:BIO. Please remember, while reading WP:BIO, that the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges is neither a biographical page nor a page about a politician. You do realize that saying no one has nominated it for deletion does not correlate to nominating a biographical page which, at the time, was ambiguous as to what level of office was held? There are different guidelines on significance and notability for different pages and topics...but that's beside the point. I can put that issue aside and now vote Keep based on the information learned about the federal level of the court, as well as the added references and information. Garchy (talk) 19:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstood, "the complete Directory was imported" means that a bot transcribed all bios contained in the Directory (more than thousand) to Wikipedia, so that every single federal US judge since 1789 has now an article here, and that none of those articles ever were nominated for deletion, although many times the only source is this Directory, see Asa Wentworth Tenney. Kraxler (talk) 00:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is precedent to maintaining articles on Canadian federal tax judges (Eugene Rossiter, Campbell J. Miller, etc.) Furthermore, I think it's fair to say that non-ALJ federal court judges, even if they serve on a limited-jurisdiction court, should be considered notable. It's unfortunate that Wikipedia's notability policies for judges aren't as specific, and accordingly aren't construed as leniently, as they are for politicians. North of Eden (talk) 22:43, 30 July 2015 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Don_R._Sommerfeldt&oldid=1137795484"