Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacqueline Chooljian


 * 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. JForget 14:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Jacqueline Chooljian

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

does not meet notability guidelines and is proxy for one notable act Bbb23 (talk) 14:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is the ONLY Wiki article for a United States Magistrate Judge in the Central District of California. It would appear that the article's only claim to fame is a significant ruling by Chooljian in 2007 involving a particular lawsuit.  Otherwise, it has very standard biographical information about Chooljian.  With respect to that lawsuit, the article simply quotes (without quotation marks) a newspaper article about how no court has ever done this before.  To the extent the lawsuit, Chooljian's ruling, and other related collateral events are notable, there is already an article that discusses the lawsuit.  Thus, the Chooljian article is duplicative and less descriptive.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Reading up on these Magistrate Judges makes it quite clear that they are a long way down the judicial hierarchy. She may have presided over a notable case, but that is essentially a WP:BLP1E and does not confer separate notability on Chooljian. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * To clarify, Chooljian did not "preside" over the case. Judge Cooper (since deceased) presided.  Chooljian was assigned as the discovery judge, which is standard procedure in the Central District for general civil cases.  However, the "controversial" ruling was a discovery order and therefore issued by Chooljian.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Just being one of about 500 Magistrate Judges doesn't give enough notability for an article. One ruling in one case surely must trigger WP:BLP1E.First Light (talk) 22:19, 20 May 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.