Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Voelker
- 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. Black Kite (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- Jason Voelker (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)
Non-notable and sounds like a puff piece I feel it does not pass WP:BIO. FITINDIA (talk) 10:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete as clear advertising and all the signs confirming it hence deletion is always the solution for it. SwisterTwister talk 01:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Retain I have removed any indicia of advertising and the subject matter is highly notable and corroborated by multiple reliable sources - Briefed in U.S. Supreme Court, Appointed County Department Head, every judge in state court recused and matter transferred to chief judge of Supreme Court. [[User:Michael M. Johnson — Preceding unsigned comment added by David M. Johnson (talk • contribs) 01:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep This is a notable and interesting case that has been discussed in a number of newspapers, forums and the legal community at large. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.202.86.138 (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete While it is commendable for a convicted criminal to reform becomes a productive member of society, I see no indication either in the article already on the page or in those I see in a search that Voelker comes anywhere close to meeting notability standards.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
References
- ^ https://firstamendmentcoalition.org/2016/01/california-open-government-roundup-watchdog-brings-brown-act-suit-in-firing-of-ex-con-who-headed-marin-county-law-library/
- ^ http://www.marinij.com/article/NO/20160101/NEWS/160109974
- ^ http://www.californiacountynews.org/news/2016/08/judge-marin-law-library-did-not-violate-law-when-it-fired-ex-con
- ^ http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2016/08/02/marin-law-library-defeats-brown-act-lawsuit-filed-by-critic/
- ^ http://marin.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=33&clip_id=7444 (Watch Video at 1:43)
- ^ http://www.marinij.com/article/NO/20160731/NEWS/160739966
- ^ http://us.geosnews.com/p/us/ca/marin-law-library-defeats-brown-act-lawsuit-filed-by-critic_6042547
- Keep I have reviewed the subject and note additional sources unrelated to the subject matter noted herein. Subject is referenced in Colorado[1] a Solano Newspaper for successfully litigating against a power company[2] and he is also noted in a legal treatise published by LexisNexis.[3] For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice"or "note"– that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary. Subject appears to meet the criterion for inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.202.86.138 (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
References
- Note to the closing Admin Both keep votes are from the same IP address and the third keep vote is from the creator of the article.FITINDIA (talk) 17:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- Since administrators don't, or at least aren't, supposed to count votes; the strength of argument that these two keeps provide is retained. Unscintillating (talk) 02:22, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - all of the best sourcing revolves around a single event. Does not appear to pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Onel5969 TT me 19:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- Keep I find that the sourcing encompasses multiple events - i.e., imprisonment, "jailhouse lawyering," litigating in Supreme Courts, ex officio department head, subsequent lawsuit, recusal of 13 judges, referred to state supreme court, Sunshine law violations, etc. I opine that, minus the administrators votes, which, for all intents and purposes should not be counted, the article should remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:8200:9EB0:18FC:2225:250:BF3F (talk) 06:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 23:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 23:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- Userfy on request, for a retarget of the article to Marin County Law Library. Unscintillating (talk) 02:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- Delete The article is very much a puff piece, clearly written to praise as much as possible Voelker's work while in prison. None of the coverage rises above mere news and local coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Voelker does not meet WP:GNG due to lack of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Lincolnite (talk) 17:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- 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.