Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer E. Nashold


 * 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. Consensus is that Neshold meets WP:GNG, and the arguments for keeping per this were stronger than those advocating deleting per WP:JUDGE. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:17, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Jennifer E. Nashold

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:JUDGE. Note- Wisconsin Court of Appeals isn't a state wide position. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm not sure I understand your comment "isn't a state wide position." I looked at the relevant guideline which doesn't say anything about district-ized appellate courts at the state level. I looked at the list article that covers the courts she's currently on and the majority of other judges at her level in Wisconsin have articles. I think she meets WP:GNG and therefore WP:JUDGE --Krelnik (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Here are three,, recent AFDs for State Appeals Court Judges who only cover a small part of a state not the whole state. Also so far as other articles, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid argument....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a certain weird meta quality of you chiding me for citing the existence of other articles while you cite the existence of other AFDs. Thanks for the chuckle. Feel free to file AFD's on the other umpteen judges who are in this particular level of Wisconsin courts. My objection stands - despite the comments made in those AFDs, I see no Wikipedia policy that a state court judge has to be statewide to be notable. --Krelnik (talk) 20:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * At WP:USCJN and specifically here reads- 'Such judges are not inherently notable'....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak delete since she's a district judge in a state court position. Which could go either way IMO depending on how you want to read into things due to it not being specifically addressed by the notability guidelines. More importantly though, she doesn't have the multiple in-depth reliable sources needed for the article to be considered notable. That said, I'd be cool with a merge or redirect to Wisconsin Court of Appeals also instead of a straight deletion. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:43, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * A "district" judge is two levels below what she is. Words have meaning, and that is not the right word for her position.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * She's a judge that was appointed at the district level. Therefore, she's a "district judge." Like I said though, it is a state position. Those are the facts. She's was appointed at the district level for a state position, but she's still a "district judge." I.E. being appointed at the district as opposed to the state level. Which last time I checked there are state level appointed judges and there is a difference between those ones and this position. Otherwise, the distinction and the fact they are district appointed wouldn't be literally everywhere that this position is discussed. So, I'm not really sure what the problem is. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 22:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Per Deletion review/Log/2020 August 24.
 * Delete: Look, any appointee of a state government is a "state-wide" employee (heck, does that mean I qualify for a Wikipedia article, because I was a case administrator for my state's Department of Environmental Protection?). The wording of WP:POLITICIAN is clear: is this a sitting judge on the Wisconsin Supreme Court?  No?  Then this is a WP:POLITICIAN fail.   Ravenswing      23:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:JUDGE and per previous rationale. Less Unless (talk) 09:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. What I don't understand is why my judgeship articles were nominated for deletion but not the other 50+ judge articles that were made for (and linked) on the same court? Snickers2686 (talk) 16:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: Me too: I looked at the list article that covers the courts she's currently on and the majority of other judges at her level in Wisconsin have articles. Yup, they have articles, some lean, some mean. I say she meets WP:GNG and therefore WP:JUDGE Whiteguru (talk) 08:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: All the delete comments refer to the same rationale, which, alone is not sufficient for deletion. The notability guidance referenced in earlier comments are not the minimum standard for an article to be retained (otherwise half of Wikipedia would be deleted)&mdash;they're standards to confer automatic notability.  Failure to meet those automatic notability standards would not make an article automatically "not notable".  There's a vast space of ambiguity between automatic notability and insignificance, which is why this process exists.  Furthermore, from the deletion considerations for notability: "The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth."  Simply put, the burden of proof in deletion discussion is on those seeking to delete the article.  The only review that seems to have been done here was a quick determination that the judge is not elected by a state-wide vote and the article doesn't currently have any in "in depth sources".  Additionally, the "state-wide" guidance is being badly misapplied here&mdash;at least in Wisconsin, all published Appeals Court rulings have statewide effect and create statewide precedent, even though the judges are elected in four geographical regions for administrative purposes.  Only a fraction of their decisions are ever reviewed by the state supreme court.  The Appeals court is effectively the court of final review for more than 90% of cases in the state.  There's a vast difference between circuit judges, which are more like county officers, and appeals judges, whose decisions can alter state law.  Judge Nashold has only been on the court for a year and has already been involved in critical cases in the state related to the 2020 elections.  As a general rule every judge of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals is at least as notable as any Wisconsin state senator.  Also, one last note on "state-wide" -- the Wisconsin Supreme Court used to be elected in districts rather than as statewide officers -- the size of the electorate doesn't make the judge significant, the effect of their rulings makes them significant.  --Asdasdasdff (talk) 15:24, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - Marginally passes general notability anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Asdasdasdff cut and pasted extremely similar comments into 6 other AfDs about judges. So IMO it should be ignored. None of them, including this one, states how the judge passes general notability guidelines. Despite Robert McClenon voting keep in all of them right after him due to them all supposedly passing it. So, their vote should be disregarded also IMO. Especially the ones that cite Asdasdasdff's vote as a keep reason. Since the user is obviously totally full of crap and has zero clue what they are talking about. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow. I'd like to suggest a sanction on user Adamant1.  Never encountered such blatant abuse of Wikipedia's community standards before.  This is the type of comment I'd expect to find on some reddit thread.  Totally unconstructive to the AfD, totally inappropriate behavior for Wikipedia.  --Asdasdasdff (talk) 22:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd just refer everyone to Articles for deletion/Daniel L. LaRocque where Asdasdasdff accused every keep voter of lazy negligent behavior. Which he has done in other AfDs also. I have zero problem with saying a voter who cuts and pasts the same personal attacks and essentially the same message into every AfD they vote in as someone who's votes should not be considered. Ultimately, this isn't a count and it comes down to how compelling the vote comment is. I just don't find "Keep because everyone who voted delete is just lazy" to be compelling reasoning to keep an article and I highly doubt anyone else would either. Especially since it's the exact same argument you've made in every other AfD you've voted in. I'll also remind you that WP:DISCUSSAFD says "a pattern of groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive." Which is exactly the case with your cut and pasted garbage comments and there's zero grounds to sanction me for calling you out about them. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:20, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Just back to clarify that your understanding is based on an obviously incorrect reading of my comment. Your overreaction is completely unwarranted hostility that has not contributed at all to the proper resolution of these AfDs.  --Asdasdasdff (talk) 23:03, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll just refer everyone to his keep vote comment in Articles for deletion/Daniel L. LaRocque where he called delete voters lazy and negligent and leave it at that. Calling voters lazy doesn't contribute to the resolution of the AfDs. Whereas, telling users not to make disruptive comments like I have here and in the AfDs totally does. It's on Asdasdasdff if wants to call me doing that an unwarranted overreaction. I'd call his 15 line AfDs screeds where he insults other users instead of talking about guidelines an unwarranted overreaction to his fear that these articles will be deleted, but to each his own I guess. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:24, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per User:Asdasdasdff and per my comments at a related DRV. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.  Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk)`
 * Keep - easily passes my standards for lawyers. Bearian (talk) 11:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't know a random page in someone's user space was authoritative as to what's notable. "eye roll." --Adamant1 (talk) 01:18, 15 September 2020 (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.