Talk:Sarah S. Vance

Regarding the notability of United States Article III Federal Judges
(copied from my talk Widefox ; talk 10:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)) I noticed you tagged an article of a United States Article III Federal Judge, to wit Sarah S. Vance, with some maintenance tags, including the notability tag, back on October 25, 2015. After noticing it today, I removed the tag, leaving the other tags in place. For your future guidance, the community consensus is that any individual who has ever held a United States Article III Federal Judgeship is inherently notable and gets a biography article. Just a heads up in case you evaluate articles of these particular judges in the future. Thanks. Safiel (talk) 05:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Safiel, see WP:NRV "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists". That's clear. To contextualise - yes it's a presumption of notability. If there's no sources no (here there are sources). You also need to be aware that policy WP:BLP / WP:V trumps guideline WP:GNG / WP:NPOL, and higher levels of consensus trumps WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. If there's only WP:PRIMARY sources for a BLP that's a problem as we base all articles on secondaries. Widefox ; talk 10:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * (this has been copied to the talk of that article, and should be carried on there as a content issue). Widefox ; talk 10:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)