Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Greer


 * 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. – ABCD 20:34, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

George Greer
Should be merged into Terri Schiavo and replaced with a redirect, since Greer's only claim to notability was his ruling in the Schiavo case. Michael Schiavo does not have his own page (the link redirects to Terri Schiavo), nor do Bob and Mary Schindler (ditto). There are thousands of local circuit court judges in the United States, and simply ruling on a single noteworthy case shouldn't be enough to qualify for a solo article. 63.173.114.141 01:53, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. We already have articles on judges who are merely notable for being judges.  This judge actually is notable. Gamaliel 02:13, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. To me this raises the issue of categorizing people who have a lot of small things going for notability... here is someone who is the presiding judge in a cause celebre, and a former legislative officer in the governing body of a fairly large city, and once roomed with Jim Morrison, albiet briefly... to me the big thing plus the curious details add up to a keep. -- 8^D gab 02:41, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Terri Schiavo. There was no need to go to VfD to do this, by the way. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:55, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - Seconding Gamaliel's comments: Clearly a notable government official regardless of how he gained this notariety(sic). unsigned vote from User:Newprogressive
 * Keep Judges in notable cases are themselves notable. Klonimus 03:24, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. —Markaci 2005-04-2 T 05:10 Z
 * Keep - He is a central firgure in a very controversial case. It should be noted that there is a wikipedia article on Lance Ito, the O.J. Simpson case judge. - permanentblue
 * Improperly signed. Page history says: 67.173.188.6 (talk &middot; contributions) 06:08, 2005 Apr 2
 * Strong Keep as independent article and expand. He didn't simply rule on the case, he lived it for close to a decade, with substantial media attention to his role and substantial infamy among those who disagreed.  The article needs to document and explain his rulings, what his own contribution to the case was, what effect it had on him, i.e., the death threats, etc; having all that in the Terri Schiavo article would either reduce it to mere summary or make her article even more unwieldy than it already is.  Postdlf 08:33, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep and Expand, but use caution, we want to avoid making it a POV fork. --Kitch 14:56, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. N-Man 00:36, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * KEEP Deletion? are you kidding me? all U.S. federal judges should have a wikipedia article. Kingturtle 23:32, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Greer's a Florida state court trial judge, not a federal judge. Postdlf 00:39, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep notable. — Sesel wa  06:45, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge to Schiavo. Radiant_* 12:06, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. A person of consequence in a notable event (even one) is inherently notable. The media coverage and criticism of him makes it a no brainer and a merge inappropriate. - RoyBoy 800 00:31, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. The original nomination was "merge and redirect". Since that action does not destroy history, any reader/editor can be bold and carry out that decision.  If it turns out to have been a controversial decision, it should be discussed on the respective article talk pages.  This should never have come to VfD.  Rossami (talk) 03:04, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Merging at this point would already be more than a controversial decision because based on the above votes, it would be contrary to expressed community consensus. Though the nominator could have taken that unilateral action initially without any kind of sanction, the result of this VfD discussion is that the subject will keep a separate article unless future discussion reverses that consensus.  Postdlf 03:32, 7 Apr 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.