Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Voelker Sr.


 * 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)

Frank Voelker Sr.

 * – ( 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 presented by in the closely-related Articles for deletion/Francis Xavier Ransdell. ミラP 21:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ミラP 21:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ミラP 21:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. ミラP 21:50, 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: it's entirely too dependent on primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things or people, none of which is enough. I won't rehash everything I've already said, but my comment in Articles for deletion/Francis Xavier Ransdell lists the evidence that Gulfstream411 was indeed almost certainly a Billy Hathorn sockpuppet. Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per my standards for notability of lawyers. Bearian (talk) 15:43, 7 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.