Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jill K. McNulty


 * 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. L Faraone  23:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Jill K. McNulty

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Speedy deletion A7 was declined in March with a suggestion to send to AfD. Article has not been significantly improved since. Subject did not reach the level of state or provincial legislature, only news coverage is to announce her candidature for election, therefore fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG notability criteria (I can only presume that her position as circuit judge prior to 1990 was for one of Illinois' county circuits). Sionk (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete: Of the three sources presented, one simply drops the subject's name, one lacks a link so that it might be reviewed, and one is simply the subject's three-sentence CV-like entry on the state's website. Fails the GNG, fails WP:POLITICIAN, and I have no idea what the prod decliner was thinking.   Ravenswing   03:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

 Albiet (talk) 16:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Albiet
 * Keep: (edited to change from delete in case anyone did not understand based on the following that I was being sardonic when I orinally said delete) On my further research I have found that researchers on the internet searching for information on this prominent jurist can already find her biographies in both the Wiki Judgepedia and at http://www.state.il.us/court/AppellateCourt/Judges/Bio_McNulty.asp, the official web site of the Illinois state courts. It is therefore not critical that information on this jurist, even, if more thorough and informative than in the other biographies, is also included in the Wikipedia encyclopedia. I do think, though, that what is being missed here is that Ms. McNulty sat, in one of the most populous states in the union, on an appellate court, which tribunals make decisions that have the effect of law in their jurisdiction, and that she, herself, was involved in rendering such legal opinions, some of which are cited in the Wikipedia article on Jill McNulty that is now up for deletion. You would think that if some members of the Wiki community had problems with that article's sourcing, they would work and research to fix the problem, but I suppose it is simpler and certainly less work to just delete the article. We are also in a period of time when the accomplishments of career women as opposed to career men are still diminished. I wonder if the reaction would be the same if this were a former male state appellate jurist, having sat just below a state Supreme Court position and who therefore is in front running for potential of becoming a state Supreme Court appointee. I will research the matter in Wikipedia. It is also inane to say that such office is not at least the equivalent of a lower house state legislative office, whose office holders by definition would be "notable" enough for inclusion in the Wikipedia encyclopedia. Albiet (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Albiet
 * Here is a brief list of Wikipedia articles on persons who last held a seat on the Illinois state appellate court before being appointed sometime thereafter to the Illinois State Supreme Court, U.S. District Court or nominated by a major U.S. political party as candidates for the U.S. Senate. What could I have possibly been thinking in creating a Wikipedia article on the holder of such a insignificant office, especially, a holder who had, as noted in such ridiculous article, been part of announcing legal precedent setting opinions from that bench?!!!
 * Sue E. Myerscough
 * Sharon Coleman
 * Charles H. Davis
 * Nicholas John Bua
 * Judy Koehler
 * Anne M. Burke
 * Richard Henry Mills


 * I'm not entirely sure whether or not you're being sarcastic here, but I suppose I'll have to take what you say at face value. There was no sexism involved here. I could see no evidence McNulty had been widely written about and there seems to be little evidence she reached a high enough office to get a free pass over Wikipedia's relevant notability criteria. If you've got an example of anything that comments on her success as a woman in a man's world, by all means put it forward. As you know, you've been creating several McNulty articles and not all of them are suitable for a general encyclopedia (though I'm sure of interest to someone studying the surname). Sionk (talk) 18:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Notability (persons)

1) Basic Notability: “A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.”

2) Pollticians: "Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature. This also applies to those who have been elected to such offices but have not yet been sworn in."

JILL K. MCNULTY, State Appellate Court Justice whose rulings have precedent setting effect statewide:

1) In multiple published reliable secondary sources:

a) Biography independently in Wiki Judgepedia

b) Biography independently at Official site of Illinois State Courts

c) Multiple Feature Articles about Jill K. McNulty appear in the Chicago Tribune newspaper

d) One of only 8 named potential Illinois Supreme Court nominees that the 36,000 member Illinois State Bar Association evaluated to be qualified for that position. Chicago Tribune 3/6/1992

2) Very influential in her profession:

a) multiple of her opinions published for legal practitioners, lower courts and other jurists as binding or persuasive authority statewide in the Illinois Reports and nationally in West’s North Eastern Reporter

b) Some of her opinions of such significance to legal practice that they are discussed in publications for legal professionals like The Chicago Daily Law Bulletin newspaper

3) Could potentially in future be appointed too or run for other high public office

DID I PUT ENOUGH FORWARD?

No. Obviously does not meet Notability (persons) criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia. Lets get her out. Are you now sure whether I'm being sarcastic? Albiet (talk) 21:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Albiet

'''**Article Jill K. McNulty has now been edited and condensed, while subject and her notability have been elaborated and more copiously sourced. Maybe worth a second look.''' Albiet (talk) 23:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Albiet
 * Delete - Fails notability. Caffeyw (talk) 01:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

* Retain Two participants in this debate say that the article on Jill K. McNulty should be deleted. They argue the article fails Wikipedia notability guidelines, but neither specifies how the article fails to meet these guidelines. The one debater clearly being sarcastic and rude does anyway specify how Jill K. McNulty meets notability. I have just read the article and it is marginal. On my read it does meet basic Wikipedia notability guidelines for persons. The subject has significant regional media coverage in national newspapers, was a candidate for a state supreme court seat and full biographies on her are published by independent internet and print sources and a judge-mcnulty.blogspot.com. demonstrates public interest. Hope my input helps. 64.134.102.201 (talk) 17:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC) Trying to be Helpful!


 * Update The following has been edited into the Jill K. McNulty stub article:

[McNulty, whose first judicial appointments were to juvenile and family court divisions, was prior from 1971-1982 a professor of law at the Chicago Kent College of Law and a nationally recognized researcher and scholar in the field of juvenile law. She was published on issues of juvenile law multiple times in multiple scholarly legal journals and cited to in prestigious legal texts on issue. Among the articles that Jill K. McNulty has authored in peer review journals are Jill K. McNulty “First Amendment versus Sixth Amendment A Constitutional Battle in the Juvenile Courts” New Mexico Law Review Vol. 10, No. 2 (Summer 1980) pp. 311-340, Jill K. McNulty and William S. White “The Juvenile Right to Treatment: Panacea or Pandora’s Box” 16 Santa Clara Law Review 745 (1976) and Jill K. McNulty “The Right to Be Left Alone” American Criminal Law Review Vol. 11 (1972) pp. 1-25.

McNulty's writings are cited in very prestigious legal texts but have also had influence outside the legal field on broader social policy debate. Jill K. McNulty’s scholarly research on proposed limits of juvenile courts jurisdiction published in Jill K. McNulty "The right to be Left Alone" American Criminal Law Review Vol. 11 (1972) pp. 1-25 at 25 is cited to at page 210 of Donald L. Horowitz The Courts and Social Policy published by the Brookings Institution Press, 1977 ISBN 0815707312, 9780815707318. She is also cited in the research journals of fields as diverse as Mary K. Zimmerman & David B. Chein “Decision Making in the Juvenile Court” Social Work Research and Abstracts Vol. 17 No. 4 pp. 14-21 (1981).]

Not meaning to seem "rude", but I thought that the idea of creating a Wikipedia Stub article on a subject is that other editors will contribute supplement to it, so it can eventually become an informative source for Wikipedia users, instead, of just attacking its early short comings. Albiet (talk) 20:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)Albiet my last comment on issue


 * Keep. Intermediate-level appellate judges seem to be considered notable.  All of Wisconsin's current appellate judges have articles, including some which only cite Wisconsin's court website.  If McNulty's legal contributions are "enduring" and important to her field, WP:Notability (people) might be applicable.  —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 02:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds very like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Maybe these other district judge articles need to be looked at. Alternatively someone needs to suggest WP:POLITICIAN is changed. From my vague understanding of the legal system, all legal judgements contribute towards the body of case law, therefore will have an enduring legacy in some capacity. The fact one of her papers has been cited in two research journals is questionable proof of her "influence outside the legal field on broader social policy debate" (Albeit's words). Sionk (talk) 04:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:POLITICIAN should be changed; I have made a note on the page's talk regarding appellate judges. An intermediary-level appellate judge is not a district judge; instead, they sit on courts "in between" trial courts and state supreme courts.  It would be my opinion that an appellate judge would be notable enough to merit an article.  —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 06:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


 * again, Keep: I stated earlier that I was through commenting on the issue of this article's possible deletion, but, in light of the above exchange between Theodore and Sionk, which exchange clearly demonstrates that Sionk did not even clearly understand the nature of a state appellate court seat before nominating this article for deletion, I am compelled to reenter the debate on behalf of Wikipedia users with 2 pieces of additional information, which I believe shall inform the debate participants in possibly unknown essentials and thereby greatly aid the debate.


 * 1) As Theodore pointed out, the intermediate appellate court is a court of errors that sits between a state’s trial court and its Supreme Court. In most states, except to my knowledge in Nevada, it is the only court which must hear the appeal of a litigant, who is dissatisfied with a trial court’s decision. The intermediate appellate courts usually publish written opinions which are hard bound in reporters and archived for the legal community in law libraries and today on line on LEXUS. These published opinions are binding authority and must be followed by all trial or lower courts in the state. A state Supreme Court alternatively hears a petitioner’s appeal of one of these intermediate appellate court's decisions at the Supreme Court's discretion by a grant of Certiorari. It does not have to hear such an appeal and, usually, does not unless an issue of extreme legal importance is involved, and, even then, if the Supreme Court agrees with the intermediate appellate court’s decision, it may not hear the case anyway and may simply let the appellate court's decision stand as state case law in the interest of the Supreme Court’s judicial economy. No appellant has a right to a hearing before the Supreme Court. Accordingly, most of a state’s binding case law is announced by the intermediate appellate courts. As can be seen, they are extremely important bodies in our society. Trial court opinions are not precedent, except, in some states, where district or superior courts are permitted to hear appeals from muni or justice court decisions and, then, the appeal's decision is only binding on those muni/justice courts in the district.


 * 2) With the latest inclusions Jill K. McNulty meets Notability (academics) Criteria (1) anyway. Her academic work in the area of the limits of juvenile court jurisdiction and a juvenile offender’s right to psychotherapeutic treatment is a contribution to an important area of national debate in the field of criminology. Prof./Judge McNulty’s scholarly work in the area is also not just published in prestigious legal journals and cited by as Sionk puts it “cited in two research journals”. Horowitz The Courts and Social Policy is a text book published by the Brookings Institution, one of the most prestigious think tanks in the nation. I'm sure that there are many more citations to McNulty's work. These cites were just readily accessible to me for example. Hope the above clarifications aid the debate. Albiet (talk) 08:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)Albiet


 * Update

The following lead in and Bibliography sections have been added to Jill K. McNulty:

Lead in ...

"Jill K. McNulty was born in Peoria, Illinois. She was a professor of law for 10 years and, thereafter, for 30 years a jurist, who retired from a seat on the Illinois intermediate state appellate court, but who had been a prominent candidate for a seat on the Illinois Supreme Court. As a legal scholar, Jill K. McNulty played an important role in shaping criminology's national debates on juvenile law, juvenile offense procedures and juvenile offender detention and treatment in the last quarter of the 20th century. Her research publications on juvenile law are cited to in dozens upon dozens of texts and peer review journals in the U.S. and, even, internationally [1] and also hearings of the U.S. Congress on federal juvenile offender legislation of the period.[2]"

"Partial Bibliography to citations ...

This is a small, bibliography sampling of the dozens upon dozens of texts and journal articles in the U.S. in which during the later part of the 20th century one or more of Jill K. McNulty’s research publications on juvenile law issues are cited at least once.

1. J. Olson & G. Sheppard (program managers-operations) Intake Screening Guides – Improving Justice for Juveniles Department of Health Education and Welfare, Office of Human Development, Office of Youth Development Washington, D.C. 20201 (February, 1975) p. 30

2. J. Hall, B. Baker, J. Foster, J. Pillota, K. Welland and J. Major Issues in Juvenile Justice Information and Training: The Out of state Placement of Children: A Search for Rights, Boundaries, Services Academy for Contemporary Problems Columbus, Ohio 1982, report prepared under grant no. 78 JN AX 0038, Printed in U.S., Library of Congress Catalogue No. 8167952; Publically available, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevent, National Institutes of Justice for Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevent, National Institutes of Justice United States Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20531 6-3-83

3. Donald L. Horowitz The Courts and Social Policy Brookings Institution Press 1977 p. 210 ISBN 0815707312, 9780815707318

4. V. L. Streib Juvenile Justice in America Port Washington, New York: Kennikat Press (1978)

5. Beyond Control – Status Offenders in the Juvenile Court L. E. Teitelbaum & A. R, Gough, eds., Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Co. (1977) 6. S. Sonsteng, R. Scott and D. Niles Juvenile Law and Practice St. Paul: West Publishing Company (1985) Vol. 12

7. Stanley Z. Fisher “Families with Service Needs: The Newest Euphemism” 18 ''J. Fam. L.'' 1 (1979-1980)

8. Daniell R. Odo, Article 5, “Removing Confidentiality Protections and the ‘Get Tough’ Rhetoric: What Has Gone Wrong With The Juvenile Justice System?”, Boston College Third World Law Journal, Volume 18, Issue 1, 1/1/98 (cite as 18 B.C. Third World L.J. 105, 1998) p. 120

9. A. Breed & P. Voss “Procedural Due Process in the Discipline of Incarcerated Juveniles” 5 ''Pepp. L. Rev.'' 641 (1977-1978)

10. Mary K. Zimmerman & David B. Chein “Decision Making in the Juvenile Court” Social Work Research and Abstracts Vol. 17 No. 4 pp. 14-21 (1981)

11. Stephen Jonas “Press Access to the Juvenile Courtroom: Juvenile Anonymity and the First Amendment” 17 ''Colum. J.L. & Soc. Probs.'' 287 (1981-1983)

12. D. Mark McIntyre “Juvenile Court Proceedings: The Conflict between Juvenile Anonymity and Freedom of the Press” 23 S. Tex. L.J. 383 (1982)

13. Susan Cohn “Protecting Child Rape Victims From the Public and Press After Globe Newspaper and Cox Broadcasting” 51 ''Geo. Wash. L. Rev.'' 269 (1982-1983) 14. Michael T. Nolan “Public Hearings in the Juvenile Court: California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 676 as Amended by Assembly Bill No. 1374” 4 ''Crim. Just. J.'' 497 (1980-1981)

15. Lynne G. Masters “Constitutioinal Law - The Horns of a Dilemma: Prior Restraint or Access to Juvenile Courtrooms” 17 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 328 (1983)

16. Elizabeth L. Pike “State Ex Rel. Oregonian Publishing Co. V. Diez: An End to Soft-Hearted Mollycoddling” 17 Willamette L. Rev. 719 (1980-1981)

17. Y. Merker & L. Rosenberg “Legacy of the Stubborn and Rebellious Son” 74 ''Mich. L. Rev.'' 1097 (1975-1976)" Albiet (talk) 03:34, 19 August 2013 (UTC)Albiet

Added to "Lead in" for Jill K. McNulty "Her work has influenced the enactment of juvenile offender legislation in states as far flung from her's as California." Albiet (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Albiet, minor fix inadvertent link brackets Albiet (talk) 15:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Albiet 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete as promotional  regardless of notability. This is the campaign season, and we need to beware of campaign biographies--the more elaborate, (and the more elaborately argued) the more dubious. She might possibly be notable as an academic, if  there's a verifiable reliable reference to being a full-time  full professor -- "a professor" when used outside a formal academic CV, can mean almost anything, including an part-time adjunct assistant professor.   As for the citations to her work, essentially every published academic and every judge at this level has them. At the academic level,   Google Scholar shows her only 3 cited articles  as 21, 15, 10 with another 10 for citations of a legal opinion.  This is not notable in any subject    We have never considered state judges below the Supreme court as intrinsically notable: the list given of articles we have keep consist of those judges at her level who have gotten seats in the Illinois Supreme Court, and do not justify the inclusion of someone who has not yet obtained one.  If kept, or if reinstated if she wins the position, the article will need very  substantial trimming. &#39;DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * This article clearly does not even remotely risk promotion of a political candidacy of Jill K. McNulty and such suggestion is ludicrous on the evidence and specious attempt to justify a deletion that is clearly just not justified.There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that McNulty is running for any political office. This woman, who was born in 1935, graduated J.D. from Northwestern and was admitted to the bar in 1960, is now 78 years old! This trail blazing female attorney was the first female associate in history ever hired at Chicago’s staid Ross, McGowan, Hardies & O'Keefe law firm, working there from 1960 – 1964 (http://www.state.il.us/court/supremecourt/jud_conf/AnnualReport/2008/Retired08.pdf Official Illinois State website as to 2 preceding sentences) which I shall hereafter note in her article. All evidence is that McNulty is retired after an extraordinarily accomplished 40 year career. Her Wikipedia article also did not first appear during any campaign or campaign season. Again, to suggest that the article is or could become a campaign advertisement is ludicrous.
 * Article sources already confirm that Jill K. McNulty was full time (not part time) faculty at the Chicago Kent College of Law and a nationally recognized legal scholar. If you had bothered to review the article sources before commenting, you would know this. McNulty is noted to already be an Associate Professor at Chicago Kent Law as early as 1976 (Vol. 16 Santa Clara Law Review No. 4, p. 745, Article 2, “Juvenile Right to Treatment: Panacea or Pandora’s Box” at p. 745, footnote *). Also, academics, who are part time faculty at a University, are noted as such in contemporaneous faculty profiles being there designated as "adjunct faculty". Jill K. McNulty, who left a full tenured professor, is not. Finally, every mundane university professor does not have over 50 journal and text citations to their works and, additional, citation of their works during U.S. Congressional and California Legislature proceedings on proposed legislative enactments. You even admit in comment that McNulty is a noted academic and scholar. The fact that you have to rely on the canard of this articles being "promotional" speaks volumes of its subjects notability.
 * Still yet another, objective, independent source containing a biography of Jill K. McNulty, in addition to those already noted, is the Illinois Blue Book, p 170, (http://www.idaillinois.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/bb/id/40600), just because you do not consider an intermediate appellate court, which produces the bulk of a state’s case law and interprets its statute law as important as the legislature that produces its statute law (and I don't know why), this does not detract from Jill K. McNulty’s general notability otherwise.


 * Are we now to delete articles based on rampant speculation? At this point, I cannot even remotely understand the vicious resistance by many to inclusion in the Wikipedia of this, in multiple Wikipedia categories, clearly notable and trail blazing women attorney, jurist, scholar and elder of the woman's movement. I can count at least 100 less notable individuals whose biographies I have encountered and, justifiably, in the Wikipedia in just the last month! I shall list them if anyone requests. Why such vicious resistance to so notable and accomplished a women?! What is going on here!!! Albiet (talk) 00:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Albiet


 * &#39;DGG (at NYPL) (talk) concedes anyway that “She (Jill K. McNulty) might possibly be notable as an academic, if there's a verifiable reliable reference to being a full-time full professor.” As McNulty’s tenure as a full time law professor is established, then, lets look at the following. How does Jill K. McNulty compare as a legal scholar to some other subjects of Wikipedia articles, who are categorized as “legal scholars”? How does the content and sourcing of her article compare to theirs?
 * Since at least 2006, there has existed a Wikipedia article on subject K.A. Taipale, who is categorized as a “legal scholar”. His field of legal specialty is law and technology. A Google Scholar search turns up 26 works, yet it shows his 26 articles have been cited by other legal scholars just 236 times.
 * An article in Wikipedia on subject Mohammed Fadel, categorized as a “legal scholar”, has existed in Wikipedia since April of this year. His field of specialty is law and economics of Islamic law, a department which he chairs. The Wikipedia article consists of a single sentence and references as its sole source the law faculty profile website at the University of Toronto. A Google Scholar search picks up 50 law related works written by an M. Fadel, but these works have only been cited by other scholars 205 times.
 * Google turns up just 3 articles for Jill K. McNulty in her specialty of juvenile law, but these 3 articles have been cited 46 times by other scholars. It appears that each of McNulty’s articles is having on average a significantly greater impact on the scholarly community in her field and society at large than either Mr. Taipale’s or Fadel’s are having upon the scholarly community in their fields. And how reliable is Google Scholar at hitting all of a scholars works anyway? Consider the case of the late Harvard legal scholar Elizabeth A. Owens (1919-1998).
 * There has been a stub article on subject Elizabeth Owens in Wikipedia since 2010. She is categorized as a “legal scholar”. The article contains no information except her dates of birth and death (1919-1998) and a sentence stating that she was a "legal scholar". The article cites to a single online biographical reference American National Biography, which requires a subscription. A Google Scholar search produces no legal scholarly works for an Elizabeth Owen at all. Yet, before everybody jumps on the wagon with their shears to delete her rather than developing this stub, they might want to read this on Elizabeth A. Owen (1919-1998) from Harvard University, http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/bulletin/backissues/spring99/article6.html “Two Path Breaking Scholars Remembered”. Albiet (talk) 07:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Albiet


 * Delete, 'vote' as nominator (the author has expended thousands of words explaining their 'keep' vote so I think I need to make my position quite clear). Article fails the current Wikipedia notability guidelines for judges and the news coverage about McNulty is fleeting, only brief mentions therefore failing WP:GNG criteria. Since the AfD nomination, the article has been expanded greatly, unfortunately without any reliable proof of the increasingly exaggerated claims. Though McNulty worked as an acadmeic, I still fail to see any reliable secondary proof (other than Albiet's claims) that McNulty was an exceptionally important one (academics, by their job description, write academic books and papers and this doesn't make them notable per se).
 * I seriously doubt there is any promotion here by McNulty herself. The promotion here is by Albeit and their project to write about people with the McNulty surname. Sionk (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Sionk Are we now reduced to the logical flaw of ad hominem arguments. Let’s instead try to concentrate on discussing the merits of the debate here. Following my “thousands of words” arguing against the article as a promotion, you concede that the article is not “promotional”. I apparently did not entirely waste my time, as otherwise, there exists no consensus here. Varying editors have in good faith argued near equally both for retention and for deletion of the article. The article must have some at least arguable merit. Why attempt to make this personal?
 * I have no personal interest in the MacNulty per se at all. One of my scholarly interests is the ancient Irish Ulaidh race and the continued influence of their small remnant into modern times. The McNulty just happen to be their namesake and descended with the Clan MacLea, Livingstone, Dunlop (surname), McKinley (surname) and others, also, their descended. Other articles I have written on MacNulty have been most on historical figures indisputably notable under Wikipedia guidelines and thereto conspicuously absent from Wikipedia, Arthur MacNalty, William A. McNulty, William K. MacNulty, Richard R. McNulty and etc. Some of these articles on historic McNulty, like Caleb J. McNulty, have not been flattering of them at all. I write and edit articles on other subjects not related to the Ulaidh too.
 * What is your problem here, Jill K. McNulty or my activities as an editor and refusal to cow tow to you. You have followed me about Wikipedia precipitously editing my articles without even bothering to read their sources and, thereby, failing as an objective editor and, inappropriately, disputing credible sources without any contrary evidence (view history Bernard McNulty, alone, here, multiple times). You have inappropriately tagged U.S. flag officers James F. McNulty (Rear Admiral USMS), who by this very definition meet Wikipedia guidelines, as "possibly" not notable and, recently, with no sound reason at all removed some brief missing information on etymology that I provided on a MacKinley surname article that article, otherwise, had no relevant information or sourcing and simultaneously you restored ambiguous links, causing me to go back and correct all of the same, as in the earlier noted instances of your “edits”. You nominated this article for deletion without even understanding the nature of Justice McNulty’s office.
 * “expanded greatly, unfortunately without any reliable proof of the increasingly exaggerated claims.” Really? What about “United States. Congress. House. Committee on Education, and Labor. Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity. Oversight hearing on the Runaway youth act: hearing before the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity of the Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, Ninety-fifth Congress, second session, hearing held in Washington, DC on March 7, 1978. US Govt. Print. Off., 1978 and Michael T. Nolan “Public Hearings in the Juvenile Court: California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 676 as Amended by Assembly Bill No. 1374” 4 Crim. Just. J. 497 (1980-1981)” and the 20 some other added cites to reliable sources or as prior to your other precipitous "edits" of article content did you also not even bother to review these sources. How about expanded and improved, while copiously sourcing to overcome irrational resistance?
 * Also, your vote is not going to create a consensus and sway this matter. Don’t you think that the administrator considered that you as nominee favored the article’s deletion and your unsuccessful arguments made to Theodore! before they twice relisted it. I am sorry that the process that you initiated is so frustrating for you. Albiet (talk) 21:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Albiet


 * I can only suggest if you do not want any personal comments, you abide by these rules too. I'm trying to engage in a rational debate about the Jill K. McNulty article and its content. If you wish to discuss your other articles, or my edits to other articles, please do so at the appropriate places (not here).
 * As for the reliable sources, there seems to be a basic misunderstanding of the Wikipedia notability guidelines. It is one thing to verify something happened or someone did something, its another thing to prove these facts make them notable. The 'reliable sources' you've listed are generally works that cite one of McNulty's works. This doesn't ij itself show she meets any of the notability criteria of WP:ACADEMIC. Sionk (talk) 23:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Is this the "rational debate about the Jill K. McNulty article and its content" that you found this Jill K. McNulty deletion debate platform "the appropriate place" for discussion, "The promotion here is by Albeit and their project to write about people with the McNulty surname. Sionk (talk)", because that is what you provided for my response and my comments were responsively on point. If you consider such rampant, wild, unsupported and unproveable statements sound argument for your position here, than so was my response thereto relevant to the debate here WP:ACADEMIC. I "abide" by your "rules" or most experienced lead. The sources cited in the Jill K. McNulty article are to sources containing biographical detail and, also, sources such as her announcement of major opinions that are now an "enduring" part of the the ever evolving Illinois case law and her scholarly writings and their citation, which have effected enactment of legislation at both the federal and state level and that, thereby, demonstrate a second "enduring" body of McNulty's work in the legal field. That is how these materials, which apparently seem unrelated to you, actually, connect to support McNulty's "general notability". I am not the one who is having "a basic misunderstanding" here. Albiet (talk) 03:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)Albiet

Keep - WP:Notability (people) - I commented (deleted above) on this article as a concerned Wikipedia user and diplomatically so not to increase the vitriol of the disscusion participants. This was before I opened a Wikipedia user account and before the Jill K. McNulty article was repeatedly improved. One of the participants unilaterally edited out a portion of my prior comment. Is this kosher? I now expand upon my cleaved comment and with a stronger statement. A friend and I had read several web articles suggesting an anti-feminist bias in Wikipedia debates on retention of articles on female subjects (85% of Wiki editors allegedly male). We researched through the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and found this deletion discussion where the creator hints at an anti-feminist bias. The creator also says that the nomination for deletion is because of a personal issue of the nominator with him and not on merit of the Jill K. McNulty article. I just opened my user account so from hereon out I can regularly participate in deletion discussions of exactly this type. I must agree with the article creator on all counts. I don't know what we're bothering to discuss anymore. Enduring contributions to Illinois case law – Enduring contributions to literature in field of juvenile law - Enduring influence in scholarly and legislative debate on juvenile law – “Broke Glass Ceiling” 53 years ago in 1960 becoming first female associate at Ross McGowan, at one time a major, top tier Chicago law firm, one of whose partners from the early 1950s was Carl E. McGowan - Awarded the Illinois Judicial Council Chairperson’s Award in 1988. Persons are not automatically notable because they are state appellate justices. Persons who have made enduring contributions to the law are not “not” notable because they are state appellate justices. Promotional - give me a break. This woman doesn’t need any promotion. 64.134.102.201 (talk) 04:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)Tammytoons


 * If I saw even one source hinting that Jill McNulty had "broke glass ceiling" (your words, I presume) then I wouldn't nominate the article in the first place. As my nomination makes clear, an independent administrator suggested this article be taken to AfD. So please stop these accusations of sexism or personal vendettas please. Sionk (talk) 08:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Sionk, the Jill K. McNulty article reads “An elder of the women's movement, McNulty was the first female associate in history ever hired at Chicago’s staid Ross, McGowan, Hardies & O'Keefe law firm, working there from 1960 – 1964.[1]" The source for Tammytoons’ comment about braking a “glass ceiling” then seems to be this reference[1] of the Jill K. McNulty article, which is http://www.state.il.us/court/supremecourt/jud_conf/AnnualReport/2008/Retired08.pdf, a portion of the official annual report of the Illinois Supreme Court, Judicial Conference, which at its page 56 states “Judge McNulty was the first female associate at Ross, McGowan, Hardies & O'Keefe, working there from 1960 - 1964.” I’m glad that somebody actually reads the article and its sources before commenting. Since I assume you are a person of your word, and you stated “If I saw even one source hinting that Jill McNulty had "broke glass ceiling" (your words, I presume) then I wouldn't nominate the article in the first place.”, I am anxiously, then, awaiting your now changing your “Delete” “vote” to a “Keep” “vote” (your words, I presume). Oh, and the administrator only “rmv speedy” deletion (their edit note), while stating that the article’s removal would “merit” an Afd, they did not suggest that it be nominated or, themselves, make the nomination. You did this all by yourself without tell of anyone’s encouragement or prompting. Don't try to associate the administrator with your actions. Albiet (talk) 11:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)Albiet


 * "Merits an AfD" means what it says, as far as I can see. Sionk (talk) 11:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, certainly does. Lets parse it. In Merriam Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary at page 777 and as employed in its verb tense by the administrator, "merit" has 2 meanings. Both of which clearly only support my interpretation and not yours. One is noted obsolete or "a kind or style no longer current: OLD FASHIONED". The verb tense definitions of merit are "1: obs. to be entitled to reward or honor" and "2:DESERVE" (The verb "deserve" is, itself, defined at Merriam Webster page 337 with usage examples and in full definitions "vb deserved; deserving [etymology and bold omitted] vt (13c) to be worthy of: MERIT (~s another chance) ~ vt: to be worthy, fit, or suitable for some reward or requital (have become recognized as they ~ - T. S. Eliot) - deserver n". A total 3 definitions are provided for "worthy" at page 1445 "1 a: having worth or value ... b: HONORABLE, MERITORIOUS ... 2: having sufficient worth or importance.). In its noun sense even, "merit 1: c a praise worthy quality: VIRTUE ... d: character or conduct deserving reward, honor, or esteem, also: ACHIEVEMENT ... 3: b individual significance or justification ("2:" is not usage. "3: a" is not usage. "1: a" is not usage and noted as an obsolete definition. Only one definition, "1: b the qualities or actions that constitute the basis of one's deserts", even in the improper noun sense is ambiguous and might be interpreted either way to support my or your interpretation. (Even improper noun definition concensus is 4 possible for my interpretation and 0.5 possible for your interpretation from 4. Proper verb tense is 2 for my interpretation and 0 for yours out of 2. Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to keep your word "If I saw even one source hinting that Jill McNulty had 'broke glass ceiling' ... then I wouldn't nominate the article in the first place." (your words, I presume) Albiet (talk) 16:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)Albiet


 * August 27, 2013 Another Day, Still Waiting Sionk: "If I saw even one source hinting that Jill McNulty had "broke glass ceiling" (your words, I presume) then I wouldn't nominate the article in the first place." (your words, I presume) http://www.state.il.us/court/supremecourt/jud_conf/AnnualReport/2008/Retired08.pdf, a portion of the official annual report of the Illinois Supreme Court, Judicial Conference, which at its page 56 states “Judge McNulty was the first female associate at Ross, McGowan, Hardies & O'Keefe, working there from 1960 - 1964.” Albiet (talk) 17:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Albiet


 * August 28, 2013 Yet, Another Day and Still Waiting, Sionk: "If I saw even one source hinting that Jill McNulty had "broke glass ceiling" (your words, I presume) then I wouldn't nominate the article in the first place." (your words, I presume) http://www.state.il.us/court/supremecourt/jud_conf/AnnualReport/2008/Retired08.pdf, a portion of the official annual report of the Illinois Supreme Court, Judicial Conference, which at its page 56 states “Judge McNulty was the first female associate at Ross, McGowan, Hardies & O'Keefe, working there from 1960 - 1964.” Yep, nomination only has to do with Jill K. McNulty and not the nominator's disapproval of other of the work of the article's creator in the Wikipedia and, certainly, Jill K. McNulty's being a career woman doesn't factor in, even, subconsciously. All human behavior is always perfectly rational and emotion free. Albiet (talk) 16:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Albiet
 * So what exactly are you waiting for? The nomination has already occurred, and there's too much discussion now to just abandon it. I highly suggest you stop hounding people involved in this discussion. It makes it look like you have a bit too much as stake here. -- &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  16:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Yep, the AfD was opened 3 weeks ago. As for the fact McNulty was the first female associate of the law firm, Ross, McGowan, Hardies & O'Keefe, well, it tells us very little. The claim she was "an elder of the women's movement" and her employers were "staid" are the claims of Albeit, not the source. The claim she "broke the glass ceiling" in a "major, top tier Chicago law firm" is IP 64's and, again, editorializing. Sure, McNulty has had a long and successful career, but doesn't meet Wikipedia's broad notability guidelines. I'm content for the AfD to run its course. Sionk (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Wikipedia has certainly permitted a very, very full airing of all sides of this Afd discussion, whatever the outcome. In for once, briefly, summarizing my perspective on those arguments and without being caustic, an appointment to the Illinois State Appellate Court isn’t worth encyclopedic mention, itself. Its judges’ issuing legal opinions that are binding on state’s trial courts can make an enduring contribution to Illinois state law. This is more likely if a judge repeatedly issues opinions over a long period of time. Jill K. McNulty sat on the Illinois Appellate Court for a long 3 decades. Joseph Burke in our encyclopedia never held any office higher than Illinois Appellate Court Judge and is notable only for his long office. While I myself only know of some cases and have not fully researched the legal reporters, both Burke & McNulty are notable for making an enduring contribution to Illinois law. Jill K. McNulty is certainly an excellent role model for young woman and should be published for them by this article's retention. THIS IS THE VERY IMPORTANT STAKE THAT I HAVE IN THE DEBATE HERE. I also think that people should live by their word. Thank you all. Albiet (talk) 17:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Albiet
 * So your primary reason for keeping this article has nothing to do with previously established notability? Sorry, but Wikipedia is not a soapbox from which you can promote your causes, nor is Wikipedia to be used to establish notability. None of the references establish the notability of her length of service or of her contributions on the bench. My suggestion is to Delete this article until such time as notability is established. As far as the article for Joseph Burke (judge) is concerned, I don't immediately see why it exists either, but whether or not he is notable is of no consequence in this discussion. -- &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  18:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. McNulty failed to cross the threshold of notability several times in her career. She failed to get elected, she failed to gain a seat on a higher court, she failed to write a bestseller, and she failed to become famous or even notorious in the media. In looking for books on McNulty, all I found were brief biographical listings in Sullivan's Judicial Profiles and the Illinois Blue Book—these have a lower standard than Wikipedia and list every minor judge. In looking for news items, I found nothing with substantial coverage of McNulty's life and career. The closest I got was a Chicago Times story from 1988 which said McNulty was "not qualified for retention" as a judge in Cook County because she "exercised poor judgment in response to charges of hustling" clients. Even though this could have boosted McNulty's notability in a negative fashion, the newspaper article did not give more coverage to her than that. Other news items were bare endorsements in lists of political candidates. No in-depth coverage of McNulty. Binksternet (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I believe what is being missed here entirely is the contribution, the enduring contribution, this woman has made to the mandatory legal authority of Illinois case law in 30 years of issueing opinions from an appellate court. Some of these opinions are sited in the article. This is not even discussed by those arguing for deletion nor her scholarly contributions to the enactment of state and federal legislation, also, sited in the article. Also, the fact that I, personally, think that such a notable and accomplished woman should be published as a role model for young woman has logically nothing to do with this notability, just, a response to comment that I was demonstrating an emotional "stake". A fallacious logical argument anyway, like the one "when you argue so strongly this discredits your argument". Of course people have emotional stakes in their activities. This does not mean that they are also not making sound arguments. Now, we are down to republication of unproven allegations without sourcing in baseless ad hominen attacks against a woman, who has never been charged let alone convicted of anything or disciplined as an attorney or judge, but instead given awards by her peers. TYPICAL. What could these possibly have to do with her notability as a person who has made enduring contributions to Illinois law. All of this is very muddy irrational argument. HAS ANYONE EVEN LOOKED AT THE VOLUME OF THIS WOMAN'S PUBLISHED CASE LAW OPINIONS IN THE ILLINOIS REPORTS AND WEST'S NORTHEASTERN REPORTER. ANYWAY, ANYONE CAN SEE WHERE THIS IS GOING NOW. WHEN I RECREATE THIS ARTICLE IMPROVED, I SHALL BE SURE TO HAVE REVIEWED EVERYONE OF THESE APPELLATE DECISIONS AND THE OPINIONS OF EVERY ILLINIOS TRIAL COURT FOLLOWING ANY OF THEM, SO NO ONE CAN POSSIBLY MISS THE POINT. Albiet (talk) 20:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Albiet


 * Also, "she 'exercised poor judgment in response to charges of hustling' clients." Come on! Don't you think that this quote inserted in context of your own verbage and without elaborating could cause readers, who might not go to the article, to come to a false impression that Judge McNulty, herself, was "hustling clients"!!!! Its getting to the point where people appear irrationally willing to stoop to anything to delete this woman from Wikipedia! This 25 year old inserted newspaper article, supposed "quote" of the state bar and posed as argument to suggest that Judge McNulty is “notorious” and unsuitable for her own misconduct, is libelously of the subject and otherwise grossly misleading. The Chicago Times article only states that in the opinion of the state bar (its members making a recommendation to voters in a non official capacity), McNulty had not vigorously enough pursued investigation of alleged miscreant lower traffic court judges and recused them during, “failure to pursue an aggressive investigation (of accusations against lower traffic court judges, not her) and by failing to request reassignment of judges who were implicated in such charges." Boy, I wonder how many people could be angry enough to try to file a clearly baseless complaint against a traffic court judge to harass them and disrupt the court system? Sounds political to me and in Chicago, who'd have thought! It is noteworthy that the voters reelected Judge McNulty anyway. Also, when parentheticals like (clients) appear in a quote, you should insert them, because the conveyor of the quote is thereby unequivically signalling that the words in parentheticals are not the words of the source being quoted. Albiet (talk) 21:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Albiet
 * 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.