Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul C. Gartzke

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. I note that the article expanded six-fold from the time it was nominated until now and is effectively a different article altogether. Mackensen (talk) 15:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paul C. Gartzke

Paul C. Gartzke (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 and and WP:USCJN. Note- Wisconsin Court of Appeals isn't a state wide position. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:47, 4 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? 18:47, 4 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? 18:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - does anyone from Wisconsin know if he had administrative powers as a Presiding Judge? Bearian (talk) 14:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• A presiding judge manages one of the four appellate districts in the state [1]. The chief judge manages the states' entire appellate system. Royalbroil 04:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete judge at sub-state level. He topped out one notch too low - head of one of four appellate courts in the state of Wisconsin. I could see a case for chief judge of the appellate court [2]. Royalbroil 04:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep none of the rationale here is 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". There's a vast space of ambiguity between automatic notability and insignificance, which is why this process exists. Furthermore, from the 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. Additionally, the "state-wide" 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 geographical 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 can alter state law. I'll make an effort to dig up more of Gartzke's important cases, but as a general rule every judge of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals is at least as notable as any Wisconsin state senator. --Asdasdasdff (talk) 04:53, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The position on an intermediate appellate state court is itself insufficient to confer notability, and I can see no other basis for notability. Asdasdasdff argues that the court makes law for the entire state; that's a fine argument for the notability of the court; but not an argument for each of the individual members of the court (none of which can make any law except as part of a majority of the notable court). Being on a notable court does not itself confer notability. Notability stands or falls on the subject of the article, not the institutions with which the individual is associated. WP:NOTINHERITED. TJRC (talk) 17:12, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to clarify the facts of how this court works -- their rulings do not require a majority of the court, but a majority of a three-judge panel -- Which gives every individual judge far more influence over the state laws than any 1 of the 99 state assemblymembers whose notability is all presumed due to their membership in the state legislature. And again, reading the deletion guidance, even if an article does not clearly meet the "inherent notability" standard that does not mean it must be deleted. There is a burden of proof on the deletion advocates to do thorough research of the individual subject, search related news articles and other sources to determine that the subject of the article is actually redundant or not significant. Furthermore, the "intermediate level judge" guidance says clearly that such an office is "strong evidence of notability" -- I've seen no effort on the part of any deletion voters to look into any of these deleted judges to determine whether or not they are actually individually noteworthy -- which the deletion guidance clearly states is required work. --Asdasdasdff (talk) 19:57, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you can safely assume that other editors commenting here understand how courts work. Your selective quotation from WP:USCJN omits some important parts: "holding such a position is strong evidence of notability that can be established by other indicia of notability". No other indicia of notability have been cited here, nor do any appear to exist from my own searches. If you have some, please bring it forward.

Do not confuse "strong evidence of notability" with inherent notability. Any suggestion that WP:USCJN introduces a rebuttable presumption of notability is not well-founded. TJRC (talk) 17:14, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • Not trying to suggest you don't know how courts work, apologize if that was implied, but the point of my statement was to make the specific judicial system in Wisconsin clearly understood for whichever admin makes the decision on this AFD -- that these judges alter state law with 2 out of 3 judges in a panel, and that this court does not require (and I'm not sure it even has a mechanism for) a majority of 9/16 judges who serve on the full appeals court.

I don't confuse "strong evidence of notability" with inherent notability. I discussed my rationale extensively. But the more important point in AFD is to not assume "inherent notability" is the only standard for notability -- in fact it is the highest standard for notability. But setting that aside, the principal point here is that (unlike some other state appellate courts) the Wisconsin appeals court is a state-wide court, which alone is sufficient to satisfy WP:JUDGE. Being a member of this court is more notable than being a member of a state legislature (of which all members are considered inherently notable regardless of any other indicia). They are notable because of the power they hold/held as a result of that membership. In both cases the individual member can directly alter the laws of the state, but in this court it only takes 2 judges. There's a massive bias in media and public attention toward the importance of legislators and an irresponsible neglect for the role judges play in setting our laws and rights and therefore the structure of the economy and the society we live in. As I said before, more than 90% of the rulings of these judges are never reviewed and 2 judges concurring can have massive effects throughout the state. The individuals are hugely consequential in the system of government and the lack of reliable information about these officeholders has been a disservice to the public. We have to begin to correct the irresponsible neglect of the court system and the judges who make up the system. --Asdasdasdff (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails the WP:GNG and none of the keep arguments are compelling. Especially the ones made by Asdasdasdff. Who cut and pasted the exact same crap about how voters where just lazy, didn't look into it, and don't understand how courts work into 6 other AfDs about judges. Yet the user never provided any sources in any of them that would help them pass WP:GNG. I guess they were to busy attacking people to find any. Lazy indeed. So.....Delete it is. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:46, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I wonder if this is the worst argument to delete I ever saw at AFD, a;though at a certain age, it’s hard to recall. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 00:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully not, because last time I checked citing something not passing WP:GNG is usually pretty standard fair in AfDs. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:44, 12 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 eighteen 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) 00:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article has been adequately expanded by Asdasdasdff to justify inclusion. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:16, 12 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.