Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry Goode


 * 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The result was  Keep - nomination withdrawn (non admin closure)  Cena rium  (talk)  21:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Barry Goode

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable judge; news coverage relates primarily to his failed nomination to the Ninth Circuit, in articles that were mainly about squabbles between Clinton and Bush. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The page on Barry Goode should not be deleted for five reasons: 1) Federal judicial appeals-court nominations have become increasingly controversial, and Goode is relevant because his name continually has been raised in speeches all throughout this decade by U.S. Sens. Pat Leahy and Dianne Feinstein as one of 17 non-acted-on nominations in the latter part of Clinton's presidency. 2) given his still-young age, it's reasonable to think that Goode may well be renominated to a Ninth Circuit by a Democratic president; 3) In the case of Goode, given that Helene White now has been nominated by Bush to an appeals-court slot (during Clinton's presidecy, she had gone four years without her nomination being acted upon), Goode will end up being one of the single longest un-acted-upon judicial nominations in U.S. history. That alone (a 998-day nomination period) qualifies Goode for being notable. 4) As the page currently shows, Goode was very active in Gray Davis' final years as California governor, being involved in the Duke Energy flap and also in the governor's dealings with Oracle. 5) Finally, Goode had a distinguished and newsworthy career as an environmental lawyer. Jarvishunt (talk) 11 May 2008
 * I would like, if I may, to address the preceding five points. On point one, I would direct your attention to the sections of WP:BIO and WP:BLP that I quote in my main comment below. The event is notable, but the person is not. On point two, WP:CRYSTAL states that Wikipedia is not a place for speculative information; if he becomes notable later, then the article can be recreated. As for point three, even if he were the longest un-acted-upon nomination in history, that does not make him notable. In fact, I don't think that event is notable in itself and warrants little more than a passing mention in more general articles about other, related topics. On point five, I would say that if his career as a lawyer was newsworthy, produce the sources to back it up and remember that being mentioned in an article about something is not the same as being the subject of that article which is required for meeting notability standards. I deliberately skipped point four to save it until last as it is the best of the points raised. I will grant that his involvement with the aforementioned scandals nearly invalidates my claim that he is notable for a single event, but I still don't see this as being sufficient to meet the notability guidelines. Simply being associated with a notable occurrance does not make you notable. I can see where you are coming from, but I must disagree on this matter. OlenWhitaker   • talk to me or don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 17:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep There is some referenced notability in the article. AlbinoFerret (talk) 17:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. To quote from WP:BLP, "[i]f reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." This person is only, as far as I could tell, covered in reliable sources in the context of a single event, specifically his nomination to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. WP:BIO goes on to state that, "[w]hen a person is associated with only one event, such as[...]standing for governmental election, consideration needs to be given to the need to create a standalone article on the person. If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted." That appears to be the case here. As WP:BLP says "[c]over the event, not the person." (boldface in original) OlenWhitaker   • talk to me or don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 17:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. GoogleNews gives 110 hits for him, after filtering, including fairly substantial coverage from his work for the Davis administration. Not a BLP1E case. Nsk92 (talk) 17:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. When the "one event" you're known for (assuming that's true) is a major political tussle in the upper house of a national legislature, your notability is not really in question. WP:ONEEVENT was intended for people who get 15 minutes of fame for balancing a hot dog on their nose and the like. What an atrocious misapplication of policy. --Dhartung | Talk 20:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep at this rate, the Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination will be next for AfD. Oneevent, after all. If that policy is going to be misinterpreted this way, its time to have the wording changed. It means just what Dhartung says it does, and it would never have become consensus if people had thought it meant anything more than that. The alternative would be to remove that part of BLP altogether, and I would hate for that to happen, because it is in fact needed to prevent unfair treatment. DGG (talk) 03:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Withdraw nomination - I figure it's good for one's mental health to admit when one is wrong. I know this could be a "non-admin" closure, but I don't know how to do that. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm prepared to concur with that, despite my above statements. I may have been way off base on this one.  The consensus is clear and I respect it.  OlenWhitaker   • talk to me or don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 16:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.