🇮🇷 Iran Proxy | https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/William_Adams_(judge)
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Adams (judge)

Add links
From 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 Delete. There is alot of commentary below but much of it is irrelevant. He does not meet the guideline at WP:POLITICIAN, and all coverage revolves around a single event. In such cases a biographical article is rarely appropriate and the consensus below is that this one should be deleted. As an editorial matter I will redirect the page to Beating of Hillary Adams where content on the event leading to his notability can be found. (I am aware that that page is also being considered for deletion.) Eluchil404 (talk) 04:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William Adams (judge)

[edit]
William Adams (judge) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to fail WP:BLP1E. The incident would clearly not be notable in isolation. The subject is really one of Internet vigilantism, rather than Adams per se, and the article makes an accusation based on conjecture in the press, leaving the sourcing decidedly shaky. Acroterion (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All Texas judges are elected. The fact that he serves in a particular county (which is sourced) means nothing. California is the same way, although judges in California are both appointed and elected, but they are state judges attached to a particular county. Here's a quote from Forbes ([1]), if it helps, although it is bereft of details: "Judge William Adams holds an elected office".--Bbb23 (talk) 19:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Forbes states he is an Aransas County Court-at-Law judge. Note the word "County" there. It does not state that he is a State judge. [2] the "county courts" are "courts of limited jurisdiction." They can handle some misdemeanors, uncontested probate cases, juvenile cases, and low-level civil actions. They can not even hear felonies, major civil cases, etc. Contested probate matters also are heard by district courts and not by county courts. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • See below. Keep and yes, all Texas judges are elected, he won, that seems notable enough and high enough office to automatically qualify for inclusion. As to the content of the article, that is a subject for the talk page, not AFD. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The applicable rule is: Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office Noting that a countywide office is not a statewide office. The requirement in not simply "elected" but that the office must be a statewide office. Judge Adams fails WP:POLITICIAN and is thus not notable. Chees. Collect (talk) 19:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think WP:POLITICIAN is being interpreted correctly here (i.e., consistent with established consensus). Yes, Adams is a state court judge, but he sits as an ordinary trial court judge at the county level, and I don't think such judges should be presumed notable by virtue of that position alone. He does not hold a "state-wide office" as that term is used in WP:POLITICIAN, which would instead mean a state state supreme court judge (regardless of whether they're elected or appointed--it varies from state to state and shouldn't matter for notability purposes), or possibly a judge on an intermediate appellate state court. postdlf (talk) 19:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply I get your point and generally agree in prinipal, but only if the only coverage was being elected county judge. The rest of wp:politician says:
Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.[7] Generally speaking, mayors of cities of at least regional importance are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city.
Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".
...and the problem here is that he HAS gotten significant coverage. In this case, if he had done some criminal activity that got press (1 event), but not elected OR if elected but never got the bad press, then he wouldn't meet the criteria. The case itself puts him into GNG territory, but 1event territory. The two together make the event, and him, more notable. It is a bit borderline, but all things considered, I think when a politician commits crimes like this, it IS more notable than Joe Sixpack because he is a public figure. Of course, half of the events that make him notable aren't in the article at the writing of this comment.... I can see both sides, but have to stick with believing that the combination of being elected and significant coverage of his activities passes wp:gng even with wp:blp1e concerns. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG, if satisfied, establishes a presumption of notability, which can be overcome by sufficient concerns under WP:BLP1E or WP:NOTNEWS. postdlf (talk) 19:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Local judges aren't inherently notable, the office not being statewide. That leaves the fact that as a GNG candidate the coverage is for a single event, which trumps GNG. No inherent notability + BLP1E problems do not add up to notability. Acroterion (talk) 20:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to look into this further, but, as I said, if it works as it does in California, judges presiding in counties are still judges that have been appointed or elected to state office. I believe it says so somewhere in the California constitution (I'm not looking for it). I believe Adams is subject to all the normal things for state judges, including, for example being subject to discipline by state judicial commission. Take a look at Texas judicial system.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nope - the Texas site clearly shows County Courts as being "limited" in many ways - like no big civil cases, no contested probate cases, some misdemeanors, and absolutely no felony cases. There are many hundreds of "county judges" in tghe US, and WP:NOTABILTY, by specifying "statewide" clearly does not give them auto-notability. Cheers - but somehow I think Texas does not use the California laws <g>. Collect (talk) 19:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The jurisdiction of a judge shouldn't alter the analysis. And your repetition of "county judge" doesn't make it a fact.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not in question that county courts are part of a state's judicial system. That's not the point. The problem is you keep saying "state office" instead of "state-wide office", when that's what WP:POLITICIAN is concerned with, judges at the trial/county level of a state's judiciary are not considered to hold state-wide office. postdlf (talk) 19:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't buy the distinction you're making. By your logic, again using California as an example because I'm more famililar with it, the only state judges who would be inherently notable would be the Califronia Supreme Court justices. Even Court of Appeal justices are relegated to districts in the state, not to what you stress as "statewide". One of the things that should matter is whether a judge applies state law. Thus, if a Texas judge applies state statutes in his decisionmaking, he is a state judge and for all practical purposes holds statewide office. State judges in Los Angeles County have different responsibilities, but they apply state law and hold a statewide office in that sense.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest that the closest analogue to a county judge is a county sheriff, who is elected by a geographically-restricted constituency, but applies state laws. Sheriffs aren't automatically notable as a consequence of their office, nor are county prosecutors, who are elected office holders on the state payroll in many states. Supreme court judges and statewide appeals boards, yes, they meet WP:POLITICIAN. I see no state-wide office here simply because they apply state law. Acroterion (talk) 20:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Municipal governments in the U.S. also ultimately get their power to enact local ordinances from state law and are considered instruments of the state for constitutional purposes, but that's no more relevant to our notability analysis of municipal politicians than it is to trial court-county level judges. It's not a question of legal interpretation. It's a question of what we editors meant when we wrote and have since applied WP:POLITICIAN. There might be a new consensus that county judges are inherently notable, but that would be a change from standing practice, such that existing guideline language can't be invoked. It would require a new argument as to why they should be considered inherently notable by that position alone. postdlf (talk) 21:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that explanation about what was in your minds when you wrote the policy and "standing practice." Might I suggest the policy be reworded to be clearer?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're certainly entitled to express your opinion as to what the guideline means, but your conjecture about others is beneath you. Why do AfDs automatically bring out the worst in some otherwise reasonable editors?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E. He is in newspapers worldwide in a burst of coverage of an alleged 2004 videotape of the whipping of a child with a belt by a cursing man. Before the release of the tape, he was just a county judge of little note. That level of judicial office has not been taken as inherently notable in previous AFDs I have seen. Google News archive shows only passing references and very routine and run of the mill coverage of his judicial actions, not sufficient to satisfy WP:BIO. If the alleged beating somehow gains significance, as the subject of plays, movies, books, or it it motivates the passage of some new law, or has other societal effects beyond one news cycle, or it becomes a notable crime, then an article could be created. Stating that he video and the article are an attack is ironic, in light of what the video shows. News articles now say that Adams has [acknowledged the authenticity of the video, while saying it wasn't as bad as it looks. Edison (talk) 23:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:BLP1E would suggest moving the article to a name about the event. But this is merely newsworthy, not notable, and Wikipedia is not news; WP:NOTNEWS. There's no basis for notability based on his judicial position; although this judgeship is a state office, it's a county judgeship, not a state-wide elected position. TJRC (talk) 00:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my above comments: as non-notable low-level judge, and per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. We need more sustained coverage and indicators of continuing significance than this to justify an article. postdlf (talk) 01:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge into an article about this incident in particular, as it has the potential to become a major news story. Hermitage (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. If a criminal case follows from this revelation (that of the leaked video portraying abuse), then we can start considering whether we create an article for this. But for now, it isn't yet deserving of a standalone article. --JB Adder | Talk 01:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename (leave redirect), make the article about the incident and not the person, as per wp:BLP1E: In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article Buddy431 (talk) 01:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On what grounds? Questions about WP:POLITICIAN aside, the beating of Hillary Adams is irrefutably verifiably notable. WikiScrubber (talk) 03:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you say, and I disagree. I have a partial alphabet too, and it contains the combinations BLP, BLP1E, and IAR. Oh, and NOTNEWS. And PRIVACYFORCRYINGOUTLOUD. Drmies (talk) 03:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Amusingly, WP:LYNCH redirects to RFC/U, but it could just as easily go to BLP1E. Acroterion (talk) 03:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and the fork at Beating of Hillary Adams. The subject is not notable, and inadequate time has passed to provide any indication that this event is of lasting significance. VQuakr (talk) 03:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can anyone please periodically check the article for BLP-violating SYNTH, OR and edit-warring? Thank you. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 04:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ahem, yeah, sure, I would--but that multitude of templates is ridiculous. Drmies (talk) 04:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. I was simply trying to indicate that every single one of these conjunctions and terms were invented to promote a synthetic observation. It is not always clear to someone who does not have a concept of SYNTH and OR what really is synthesis or original research. To an experienced editor it may be obvious but the tagging is meant to show the existence of OR and SYNTH structurally to someone unfamiliar with the concepts. If you revert everything to the BLPN consensus single sentence version the tags are not needed. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 04:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I think it's overkill. But in the meantime, the warring has broken out again, and I was going to fully protect the article but I'd really like some independent eyes on the article (mine aren't so independent, since I have an opinion here in this AfD). I posted a notice on ANI. I could tell you what I'm hoping for, but I think you can guess. Drmies (talk) 04:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree it is an overkill. But sometimes, in resistant cases, demonstrating SYNTH and OR word-by-word may be necessary, at least IMO. The ANI notice was an excellent idea and the report well framed. Thank you. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 04:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • "But sometimes, in resistant cases, demonstrating SYNTH and OR word-by-word may be necessary" ...Wow. What an odd kind of reasoning. Feudonym (talk) 04:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Sorry that I have to be direct but it is not any stranger than your resistance to understand that Youtube and the tabloids are not reliable sources, not to mention the blatant synthesis and original research of your edits in addition to your BLP-violating edit-warring. Here I am trying to show you word by word what SYNTH and OR mean and these are the thanks I get from you. What an utter waste of time. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 05:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • I have never shown "resistance to understand" anything. That was the first time you conversed with me so you maybe you are confusing me with someone else. The YouTube link was just to illustrate the video in question, it was not meant to be irrefutable proof of everything in the article. Furthermore, I was under the impression that MailOnline, the online arm of national UK newspaper Daily Mail was a reliable source, in addition to others such as NZ Herald, but you seemed to have immediately dismissed these as gossipy or unreliable websites and deleted them (without a single look?). Oh well, I guess these events have not been covered by a single reliable source as you say and hence the whole article needs deleting. I'll leave you to it. Feudonym (talk) 05:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Conversation does not always happen in a direct way. Before we addressed each other on this page we indirectly communicated by edit summaries as shown on the article history. Unfortunately in the beginning no amount of tagging for synthesis or original research on my part was sufficient to end the edit war. This is what I meant by a failure to understand the meaning of synthesis etc. On a more positive note, your latest edits do show considerable improvement in these areas. But I will not try to claim any credit. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 05:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • But I have to admit there may be some hope yet. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 05:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, as he's an elected official in the news, and this can only be expanded if it is kept. If sufficient media coverage is not there then it can be deleted in future.Feudonym (talk) 04:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I simply can't believe what editors get away with on Wikipedia. Putting aside civility issues, which no one can agree on at Wikipedia, the comment is arguably a BLP violation, and I should really remove it as such. It's incredible to me that so many admins who are contributing to this discussion will let it stand without even commenting.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is the latest "Internet viral" story. Similar in nature to Death_of_Wang_Yue. (Shocking video plus Internet response). Best to wait till further news coverage surfaces in the upcoming days. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 05:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Many commentators above fail to understand the nature of judges in this context. He's simply another county official known for a single event. WP:POLITICIAN does not grant automatic notability to every local official, regardless of what US state (or corresponding entity) they're in; aside from the recent case that should remind us that Wikipedia is not the newspaper, he seems to be no different from 253 or more truly average people across the state. Nyttend (talk) 06:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, we have some county judges in California who have articles based on being the judges in significant cases. I dont know if his status is the same as a california superior court judge, or if he tries felony cases, but the video beating is significant in terms of media coverage and the guarantee of a longer investigation period, with multiple effects stemming from it. i dont think BLP1E applies to events of significance, that will have longer lasting effects, but more to typical news cycle "man bites dog" stories. better of course to have this start as a section in an article on a related topic, such as a list of texas judges. Content and weight of article are topics for the talk page alone, as are issues of BLP and libel.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As carefully explained above, the subject does not hold an office that makes the subject inherently notable: County official + one viral video + excited response does not satisfy WP:GNG but does fail WP:BLP1E. The subject does not hold a statewide or provincewide political or judicial office, so WP:POLITICIAN does not apply. Johnuniq (talk) 06:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Sceptre took the words right out of my mouth. Aside from the obvious BLP issue, I don't see anything about this that makes it notable outside of BLP1E. Trusilver 06:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete barring any major developments. WP:BLP1E is the main one here; being targeted by the good hand of Anonymous isn't in and of itself notable. If this reaches nation- or worldwide media attention and receives an appropriate reaction aside from whatever V can do vs. Norsefrost, then it will get an article and my rationale will change to Keep - but not before that point. —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 07:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Since Johnuniq (three opinions up) said exactly what I was going to say, there's no need for me to repeat his references to policy and guidelines. Deor (talk) 07:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:POLITICIAN, WP:GNG, he is an elected official of Texas, and because he has become a top news story across the nation, appearing in many reputable sources (example). For those claiming he is not significant for anything other than the beating (and therefor fails the BLP1E test), see Death of Wang Yue regarding the death of a child of no (relative) import other than her death. ~ UBeR (talk) 09:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to WP:POLITICIAN: Adams's office is a county office, not a state-wide office ("Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national ('statewide/provincewide) office"). He is not inherently notable by virtue of this local office.
With respect to WP:GNG, you are confusing notability with newsworthiness. GNG itself states, "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not. That last bit includes WP:NOTNEWSPAPER: While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion.... Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews.
With respect to the comparison to Death of Wang Yue; first, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a winning argument. Second, the focus in Death of Wang Yue is on the reaction in China to the death. Only two paragraphs (one of which is only one sentence long) deals with the incident itself. The majority of the article deals with the substantial public reaction and the suggestion that reforms may be made to the law as a result of the incident. That last part is, in my mind, a substantial distinction between that article and the case here. Death of Wang Yue is about an incident that is perceived as requiring a change to the law of one of the largest nations on the face of the earth. William Adams (judge) is about some jackass who beat up his kid. TJRC (talk) 18:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice in the event that something somewhat more encyclopedic and notable comes out of this event that, in my opinion, presently fails WP:NOTNEWS. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 18:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep The degree of national news coverage at this point is sufficient. There's a point at which oneEvent loses any sense of rationality--it is a matter of judgment, and my judgment is that this is past the point. (It would not have been so yesterday). DGG ( talk ) 18:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge to Beating of Hillary Adams. As DGG says, this has gone way beyond your average BLP1E. It has been a lead story on most of the major national media outlets for two days now. Also, it has resulted in the Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct, for the first time in its history, issuing a public statement confirming that it is conducting an investigation. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Texan here, so I'm going to explain Texas courts. There's the State District court system (were significant criminal cases go), County courts at law (for sheriff actions), and Family Courts (for enforcing school attendance policies, divorces, and minor domestic issues). William Adams (if I read it correctly) falls in the Family Courts category. He's elected for a single county and not at the state level. The county is separate from South Padre and Corpus Christi counties. At the time being we only have the shock video of the discipline without any reasonable explanations. Sounds like a BLP1E to me. No objections to having a more reasonable article created in a few weeks once the initial shock is calmed down and there's reliable and verifyable information that demonstrates notability. Hasteur (talk) 19:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E, WP:ATTACK, etc. I'm undecided on whether an article on the incident is justifiable - it has received a lot of media attention, but may not sustain lasting notability. But as article on the person is definitely not: this is directly the sort of article that BLP1E is meant to prevent. I'm surprised it wasn't speedied on sight. Robofish (talk) 20:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Beating of Hillary Adams — Look, I don't condone what this guy has done, nor am I saying that there's no claim to notability here (the uploaded video is receiving widespread attention on YouTube, among other sites). But this is the only noteworthy thing about him, and it's not enough to justify a BLP based on negative press. I do, however, agree with DGG and NawlinWiki above; the story itself has become very notable and should have some sort of article on Wikipedia, there's just no basis for a separate biography. Master&Expert (Talk) 22:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - My god, why am I not surprised that this nonsense was created as soon as the headlines hit Google News. This is what WP:BLP1E was put in place to prevent, articles on people who would otherwise be wholly unknown, save some some sensational "look what the drive-by media is talking about for today, to be forgotten by next week". He is in hte news for the alleged child abuse video and nothing more. Also, Adams does not qualify for WP:POLITICIAN either, as Adams is a judge in the Aransas County Court. County judges are not "state-wide", which is the politician notability threshold. No redirect warranted, as the "Beating... article needs to be shit-canned as well. Tarc (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep obviously. Major Internet celebrity, global news coverage. I fail to see how this one is any different than Basil Marceaux. Mocctur (talk) 22:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Basil Marceaux, just by glancing at the article, passes WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTABILITY, due to "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article," since he has run so many times, he has a ton of news about him. He may not pass WP:POLITICIAN inherently, but he has sufficient news coverage. This story, although it may in some people's opinion pass WP:NOTABILITY, in my opinion completely fails WP:NOTNEWS, as there is insufficient non-attack information in reliable sources about the event, or person. When more reliable sources, and a longer time period of being in the news, then I may support your argument. Gwickwire (talk) 23:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/Rename to an "Incident"...something along the lines of maybe The Rockport, Texas Corporal Punishment Incident. While technically a "beating," the press is already noting that corporal punishment is not illegal in Texas and thus the language used here will certainly be seen as judgmental and inflammatory. Beyond this initial spectacle, I do think this incident is relevant for Wiki with regards to a variety of other subject matters...corporal punishment, child abuse, morality, anger management, job stress, power, male studies, white-collar crime, privacy, secrecy/behind-closed-doors, revenge, media frenzy, character assassination, subjective memory("music and games that were unavailable for legal purchase at the time"), victimization, file sharing...etc etc...just NOT straight up Biography. Johnebe (talk) 16:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Johnebe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Delete One incident which does not confer enough notability to justify an article. In addition, it is clear that attempts have been made to use this article as a way of giving negative publicity to its subject, in fact internet vigilantism, as stated in the nomination. If this is the principal purpose of the article then it qualifies for deletion as an article the purpose of which is to promote a point of view. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:POLITICIAN, If this was simply a father beating his daughter, then I would concur with the deletion policy, however, the article should be a light biography of Adams, which I'm sure more information will come out about him soon; with a lengthy section of this Scandal. He serves the public in the American judicial system, that is cause number one for his inclusion in wikipedia, there will be great public interest in him. Muwwahid (talk) 15:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now - I had put keep above, but after searching more and actually viewing a painful video, I would say delete UNLESS criminal charges are filed, as the combination of coverage and being an elected official COMBINED with the charges would warrant an article. That he doesn't pass wp:politician doesn't matter regardless, because that isn't the rationale for creating the article, so we can just drop that anyway. At this stage, it doesn't pass wp:gng due to possible BLP1E issues because while he has been demonized, it hasn't been shown he did anything wrong in the eyes of the law. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Rockport police have stated that the judge will not be charged; see [3]. TJRC (talk) 18:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment In regards to State charges within Texas, that is up to the District Attorney, not the police, although they usually agree on these things. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • "[Rockport Police Chief Tim Jayroe] said the district attorney determined he couldn’t bring charges, and that police would discuss the case with federal prosecutors even though he doesn’t believe federal charges would apply." TJRC (talk) 18:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • (Follow-up) And no federal charges, either: [4] "Angela Dodge, a U.S. attorney's office spokeswoman, said prosecutors determined there was no federal crime depicted on the 2004 video of Aransas County Court-at-Law Judge William Adams. The decision came a day after the local district attorney decided the statute of limitations blocked any state charges." So there will be no charges, no trial, state or federal. The case is dead. TJRC (talk) 19:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Among other things, WP:POLITICIAN. I should note WP:POLITICIAN has three cases of notability regarding elected officials "who have received significant press coverage" or have had "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". So while all the debate has been about the first case for politics ("politician"), there are two additional definitions which can define him as a notable for politics ("politician"). Adelson Velsky Landis (talk) 03:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those other definitions are referring to the WP:GNG, but the GNG must also follow WP:BLP1E, which this article violates. SilverserenC 03:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • All single notability guidelines contain some form of a "even if the person does not meet the criteria here, he still may qualify for an article via the WP:GNG" line. This person may be noted in multiple reliable sources, yes, but the "one event" aspect of just why he is in those sources essentially disqualifies him from article worthiness. This is why we take into account all guidelines and policies and such when evaluating a subject here in AfD, rather than laser-ing in one. Tarc (talk) 12:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment People, please remember that a title in one state may be very different from a title in another state. See New York Supreme Court for an example of how courts in different states have different names — someone may have a title that would make him pass WP:POLITICIAN in your state but wouldn't in his state. Nyttend (talk) 13:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've resisted revisiting the issue of WP:POLITICIAN because the dispute as to what it means and how it should be applied devolved into some Wikipedian version of original intent, but what this discussion shows is that the guideline should be rewritten to be clearer. Frankly, I don't much care if this judge's article is deleted, which is my guess as to what will happen, but I do care about other articles about state judges and how they are treated in the future when it comes to notability. It would be better to have a notability guideline specifically for judges as politicians are elected, and not all judges are elected (some are both appointed and elected).--Bbb23 (talk) 15:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the "elected" element is just a distraction, as what we ultimately care about is the stature of an office (i.e., "statewide"), not how it was filled. For example, judges on the New York Supreme Court, which is the trial court-level organized by county, are elected by popular vote, but judges on the New York Court of Appeals, the state supreme court, are appointed by the governor, and we currently consider the latter automatically worthy of an article but not the former. Even when it comes to more straightforward "political" offices rather than judicial, United States Senators are appointed sometimes, and even a president can serve without being elected, yet these are obviously more significant than, say, local school board members who are elected. If you'd like to discuss expanding notability guidelines to cover lower-level judicial officials, WT:BIO or WP:VPP would be good places to post suggestions and arguments as to why. postdlf (talk) 15:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the level of the judge is more important than whether they are elected or appointed, but I also think the county vs. state distinction is not necessarily helpful. I also think it matters whether the judge is a state or federal judge. Thus, a trial-level federal judge may be inherently notable (federal judges are never elected), whereas a trial-level state judge may not. At the same time, we might want to make all appellate state judges inherently notable. However, when you get to the trial level, it becomes harder, state by state, to distinguish between the different levels of judges. For example, California used to have municipal and superior court judges, and municipal judges had less power. Then, the two courts were unified. Each state is different, although there are, of course, commonalities. The reason "elected" is NOT a distraction now is because of WP:POLITICIAN, which not only addresses elected officials, but even uses the word "judge". I would take judge out of WP:POLITICIAN completely and have a separate guideline for all judges, state and federal, and the criteria to be used for each kind. I might add that the Wiki court/judge project has its own evolving guidelines.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, remove "elected judges" from WP:POLITICIAN entirely. No, do not create yet another SNG. I'm getting tired of seeing the proliferation of ultra-specialized sub/single-notability guidelines...hell, in a DRV last week someone tried to get one going for flippin 'roller derby', of all things. Imagine that, girls playing a fake sport on the weekends now could soon be hitting a Wikipedia near you. Facepalm Facepalm SNGs should not get people to have Wikipedia articles if they are otherwise complete notability failures. That was never the intent of these sub guidelines. Tarc (talk) 18:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He's a local judge in Aransas County which is not even close to being the size of any state. It's near Corpus Christi, and if it included Corpus Christi then I might feel differently about this.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hi there. I was reading about this guy and also about the associated policies and guidelines that Wikipedia has for keeping and deleting articles. I think it's pretty clear that his press is not limited to his town or even his region. If the argument for his deletion is that he is only famous for one event, then how does Wikipedia keep articles like Rachel Corrie, Lee Harvey Oswald, Jack Ruby and other people who are famous for simply one event. Also, it appears to me that judges are automatically notable, just like sportsplayers and such. I am sorry if this statement doesn't appear to be the best for the argument as compared to some others. I am pretty new at this and will try to get better as time passes. Thanks. 140.247.141.158 (talk) 21:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Lee Harvey Oswald is notable because he has been the subject of extensive, continuous, non-trivial coverage from the press. His notability, while related to the one event (death of JFK) is also related to the subsequent events (federal investigations, conspiracy theories, etc). Books were written about him, documentaries were filmed, etc. I don't know about the other cases but I suspect they are similar in spirit. In this case (William Adams) the story is not nearly as high-profile and likely won't generate further developments, either in the press or in the forms of investigations. I hope this helps. — CharlieEchoTango — 21:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I might not agree with you but your comments were presented well and I'd just like to thank you for contributing to this discussion. Cheers! LoveUxoxo (talk) 02:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge into the event (currently titled Beating of Hillary Adams, also subject to AfD). While the subject doesn't make the bar as a county rather than state judge, they are still an elected official and have an amount of presumed notability already — in any case they are a public figure so the BLP claims carry a lot less weight. Being a judge and having the police chief state that they "believe that there was a criminal offense involved" is, in itself, notable, particularly when you're a judge working on child abuse cases and the claim against you is child abuse. Then being quoted saying "It looks worse than it is" guarantees you additional notoriety, as evidenced by deep and diverse international news coverage extending far beyond the usual short news cycle. I think we'll be analysing and referring to this as a case study for the foreseeable future — indeed we already are. -- samj inout 11:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to obvious and unquestionable notability and interest, but even at worst we would merge and redirect to Corporal_punishment_in_the_home#United_States. I can think of nor do I see any actually legitimate reason why would delete something covered in widespread media outlets concerning a judge. We are not a paper encyclopedia. We can and should cover anything and everything that is backed by reliable sources and for which a neutral fact based article can be written. If all these other sources are out there anyway, we need not concern ourselves with "protecting" someone whose actions are viewable online to billions anyway... --131.123.123.124 (talk) 15:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The nomination states the reason is WP:BLP1E. It is not optional. None of the keep votes address the fact that Adams is known for one event (and the "If the event is significant..." test hasn't been even discussed above by keep voters). I'll add some text from BL1PE here to guide editors who want to argue that it does not apply to William Adams.
Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article.
If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them.
So what's the second event for William Adams. or what is likely to happen to raise his profile? We know that his name reached global media because there's an available video - that's a textbook one event matter. patsw (talk) 19:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even if guilty of a crime, that's not so notable for inclusion. Bearian (talk) 01:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Try that search again with Judge "William Adams". The search in your format matches Judge OR William OR Adams anywhere in the article. From what I saw in my search, it was Letters to the Editor or other non-RS opinion. An example of on-going news coverage, please. patsw (talk) 14:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. How about Judge Beats His Daughter ... Abuse Or Discipline? from NPR on Nov 8, 2011. Does that satisfy it?. I guess you could also use Commission investigating judge Adams from The Rockport Pilot on Nov 9, 2011. You might also consider Protests Over Judge Adams at Aransas Co. Courthouse from Nov 7, 2011 from KRISTV News 6. 65.96.60.92 (talk) 18:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be missing the point. It's still "flash in the pan" reporting discussing the single event. Still a combination of BLP1E and POLITICIAN notability that doesn't pass either. Hasteur (talk) 19:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but you asked to prove that he is still undergoing continued RS coverage. I provided an article from RSs for each of the last three days. How did I fail in your challenge? 65.96.60.92 (talk) 00:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. We're running at about a 2-to-1 clip in favor of deletion, with 4-5 of the keeps relying on the debunked politician guideline to boot, so the outcome is pretty much wrap. We also just passed the 7-day mark, so hopefully this is closed shortly.. Tarc (talk) 22:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another article/video from CNN In Sweden, a generation of kids who've never been spanked on Anderson Cooper. Not sure why you all think he's not the subjected of continuing, ongoing RS coverage. 65.96.60.92 (talk) 01:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the point, which is what was once a torrent has now slowed to a trickle. Check this graph at Google Trends. Tarc (talk) 02:08, 10 November 2011 (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/William_Adams_(judge)&oldid=1266434575"