Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francis Xavier Ransdell


 * 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Francis Xavier Ransdell

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet WP:JUDGE as a mere state-level district (not statewide) court judge. Page also created by serial copyright violater whose articles are being PCCed as we speak. I thought this was made by that person, but it was by an apparent SPA who only had edits over a three-day period. Update: On second thought, the SPA has been suspected to be a BH sock due to evidence by. ミラP 21:49, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ミラP 21:49, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ミラP 21:49, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. ミラP 21:49, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. ミラP 21:49, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. District court is not a level of office that confers an automatic pass of our notability standards for judges, but this article is not reliably sourced anywhere near well enough to get him over the bar: the "sources" are family genealogies, a clarifying note that is not any sort of source at all, a source which gives the publisher and date but fails to provide the title of the article being referenced, and the obituary of his grandson, zero of which represent notability-supporting reliable source coverage about Ransdell. To be honest, I'm pretty sure that despite the different username, the nominator's "mistaken" initial impression about the creator of this was actually correct — it literally has all the classic hallmarks of Billy Hathorn's work, from the "local officials in Louisiana" angle to the complete and total reliance on garbage sourcing, and all of Gulfstream411's contributions were created during a period when Billy had just been released from his first copyvio-related editblock but had not actually resumed editing under his original username yet — in other words, exactly the period when he was routinely evading the first block with many other sockpuppets. And for added bonus, just take a wild guess who was the very first person to ever touch the article after Gulfstream411 was done with it. An SPI check would be pointless now, as both accounts are almost certainly too stale to definitively link anymore, but I'm quite convinced that Gulfstream411 was a Billy puppet. Bearcat (talk) 15:22, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per my standards for notability of lawyers. Bearian (talk) 15:43, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete The biggest claim to notability seems to be having a brother who was a U.S. Senator, but notability is not inherited. I didn't see significant reliable sources to show that WP:GNG and there's no evidence that any SNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 22:51, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Recognizing that his judicial career is very old, the only citations I can find to him are appeals from his rulings in the Louisiana Reports and SE reports.  He was a trial court "district court" judge in Louisiana.  Does not meet WP:JUDGE.  Doesn't meet WP:GNG as far as I can tell.  I don't have a subscription to Newspapers.com, and I am guessing that might be the only sources we are likely to find.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 17:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete More Billy Hathorn nonsense, with the only twist being a sock created it. 💵Money💵emoji💵Talk💸Help out at CCI! 11:07, 10 October 2019 (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.