Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albert F. Sabo

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 02:12, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Albert F. Sabo
Are all state judges inherently noteworthy? Does it matter if the most notable detail is a completely unsubstantiated claim? If so, how? GRider\talk 00:23, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, and expand. Seems to have some notoriety in the media. Megan1967 01:13, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, though his notoriety seems to be based entirely on the Mumia case. However, this article desperately needs some NPOV-ing. If you are asking about my bar in this case, I believe that he is notable not as a state judge but as the subject of many news stories and intensive international debate, and due to the fact that "encyclopedic" biographical facts about this individual may be deemed to be important to a better understanding of the arguments on both sides of the (unquestionably notable) case in which he was involved. HyperZonktalk 17:46, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * To answer your question, no, state judges aren't inherently noteworthy IMHO. This one, however, is more notable than the average judge. Since his notability is on one case only I'd suggest mergingthere. Radiant! 10:14, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect. Agree with Radiant!.  State judges are not inherently noteworthy.  In this case, there is already a better and longer discussion of Sabo at Mumia Abu-Jamal.  Rossami (talk) 20:16, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. His notability seems based on a single high-profile trial, but redirecting the name of a judge to an article on an individual (Mumia Abu-Jamal) involved in a case the judge presided over seems awkward.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 01:42, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * I would keep this article. That trial was highly news worthy, someone might want to look up this judge if one was doing research. Morris 19:39, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)