Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John A. O'Keefe (judge)

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John A. O'Keefe (judge)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Lacks notability. It’s also a one sentence article that was last updated 4 years ago. Note that WP:JUDGE is a necessary but not sufficient criteria for notability. NM 03:45, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NM 03:45, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:25, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:25, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no refs to establish notability. Most similar judges don't have articles: Federal Court of Canada#Current judges.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 06:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Do judges of the Federal Court of Canada fall under the criteria of WP:JUDGE? I would have thought that judges of the Federal Court of Appeal certainly do. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since this was changed into a bundled nomination of four articles, I'm relisting this discussion to solicit more comment from editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems to lack sufficient references. - Indefensible (talk) 05:03, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All are automatically notable under WP:JUDGE. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Per WP:JUDGE, holding office is only a secondary criterion. People who satisfy this criterion will almost always satisfy the primary criterion, which is WP:BASIC that these articles fail at. NM 18:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'd like to see a stronger consensus here and the questions raised demonstrate a lack of clarity about notability about individuals holding the position of judge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:44, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with NM's interpretation of WP:JUDGE. Per the additional criteria, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. In this case, there appears to be zero secondary coverage of the four nominated judges. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 14:12, 31 August 2023 (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.