Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eugene Michael Hyman


 * 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. The consensus has obviously changed during the course of this discussion, in light of new information and improvements to the article, to the point where the current consensus is to keep. At the least, there is certainly no consensus to delete. Mkativerata (talk) 02:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Eugene Michael Hyman

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Challenged prod. I don't think judges at this level are intrinsically notable, and there is nothing in the references to show otherwise.  DGG ( talk ) 03:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - State trial court judge... we've, to my disagreement, not considered federal judges intrinsically notable in the past, so I don't think this one qualifies either. It doesn't help that the quality is bad and that there is a promotional tone. Shadowjams (talk) 05:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - a non-notable person. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 10:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I can't quite bring myself to say that a judge is a non-notable person, judges have more real-world impact than nearly any other profession and usually get a fair amount of press. But without invoking that particular phrasing I will say that a biographical article on a judge at this level does not appear to be acceptable. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete Based upon the article as it currently exists, and what I can find in an admittedly brief search, I don't see notability. I regard federal Article III judges as inherently notable (given the requirement for presidential nomination, Senate confirmation, and lifetime terms); but not all state court judges, certainly not at the trial court level.  There are some hints that Hyman has something more, with the claim of creating "Therapeutic Jurisprudence," but it's not borne out by anything in the reference that purports to support it; and I can't find anything that would suggest that it's a critical distinction.  Likewise, his teaching work does not seem notable, although maybe something just got missed there.  I would suggest to the creating editor that, if she is convinced of Judge Hyman's notability, she seek to have the article userfied, work to make the claims of notability more apparent and better-cited, and then try bringing it back to article space when she thinks it's ready. TJRC (talk) 19:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually, she did that, on her talk page. Since then she has removed TWO prods, but without significantly improving the article. She appears to be a very dedicated WP:SPA. --MelanieN (talk) 05:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - he comes close to meeting a few of my standards for notability of attorneys, but Superior Court judges are dime-a-dozen in a state as large as California. Bearian (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails notability. Nothing found at Google News; you would think that a superior court judge would at least occasionally make the news, but no.The claims of the article are not supported by the references provided, or by my searches. For example the article claims he was a founder of the field of Therapeutic jurisprudence; that term is widely used on Google but never with reference to him. In fact a search for "Therapeutic jurisprudence" and "Hyman" turns up exactly nothing except this article. --MelanieN (talk) 05:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Federal judges and high-up state judges should pass WP:POLITICIAN: "Politicians who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature and judges." This guy isn't a high-up state judge or a federal judge, and I don't see him as having enough coverage to pass the general guideline; however, I don't think we should be as strict on higher-up judges as Andrew Lenahan proposes.  Nyttend (talk) 01:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - per WP:ANYBIO and reliably sourced citations introduced to article. Easily meets WP:GNG now as citation citing his recognition in the United States House of Representatives congressional record states "the United Nations Public Service Award is regarded as the most prestigious international recognition of excellence in public service" and that he was the first American judge to recieve it. Hyman also received significant coverage during a 60 Minutes segment. All the new citations can be used to build an "Early life and education" segment. As per WP:GNG and cited congressional record alone, GNG says "no original research is needed to extract the content." moreno oso (talk) 08:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep after brown bear's expansion and improvement. That's an impressive CBS 60 Minutes segment on this judge and his first-ever court exclusively focused on juvenile victims and perpetrators.  Unquestionably a Wikipedia-worthy topic, and personally I tend to be deletionist about borderline BLPs -- I don't think this judge is. Antandrus  (talk) 15:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep on the basis of the UN public service award, which is highly notable.  Some of the other material is not significant:   a talk at a conference, or adjunct faculty at a law school.  And something read into the Congressional Record is not a RS for any purpose at all beyond where it was originally published, as Congresspeople can put it whatever they wish, including trivia about their constituents. I'm not closing speedy keep, because there are 2 deletes outstanding.    DGG ( talk ) 18:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for Rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.    Snotty Wong   confess 18:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per the recent changes to the article by moreno oso. Although I find it confusing that this person has served as a judge "for over 20 years" yet he "was elected and took his oath of office on January 8, 1997".  Article needs work but the subject is notable.    Snotty Wong   confess 18:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Judges are normally appointed to lower offices and then elected to higher ones. No confusion if you know the law and follow politics. moreno oso (talk) 19:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: per DGG - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:03, 10 August 2010 (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.