Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Reilly (judge)


 * 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. Not an overwhelming case, but the consensus is to keep.-- Kubigula (talk) 04:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

John Reilly (judge)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:GNG. His work as a provincial court judge does not make him inherently notable, nor does the publication of a single book either. He is a candidate for the current Canadian federal election, and I strongly suspect that this was created (on April 2) to promote him, though, I must admit it is not written in overly promotional terms. Ravendrop 06:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: I pondered nominating this one for a while, too, but decided against it because WP:POLITICIAN does allow for judges to be considered notable. There should almost certainly be some discussion of whether that criterion should be tightened up somewhat, and I agree that chances are it was created when it was because of his electoral candidacy and likely wouldn't exist otherwise, but as it stands this is a bit of an edge case where a policy that's likely a bit too lax does allow for him. Bearcat (talk) 07:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Except that a provincial court judge is not a provincial-wide appointment, it is merely a very local and minor appointment. If he were an Alberta Supreme Court judge (a provincial-wide appointment) then he'd have a claim to notability.  Also as an aside, there has been numerous discussions on a specific notability for judges (I've lost track of where the latest one is at - an older failed proposal is at WP:JUDGE), but most general consensus is that judges are notable only if they preside over a court that can issue binding precedent (such as a supreme court or court of appeals in this case), and again, the subject fails here, as a Provincial Court judge does not issue binding precedent.  See also WikiProject United States courts and judges/Notability for an essay (I think it is at least) about the approximate equal position in the states.  Ravendrop 07:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, believe me, I agree with you wholeheartedly — that's why I'm suggesting that WP:POLITICIAN needs to be tightened up. There was a similar case last year over Lori Douglas, an obscure family court judge in Manitoba who got herself into the news for prurient reasons, but the discussion ultimately closed at keeping her because she was a judge. There should be a tighter notability requirement for judges, I agree — but that needs to be spelled out more explicitly at WP:POLITICIAN than it currently is, because as written that guideline is still frequently interpreted to mean any judge at all. Bearcat (talk) 07:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but. Lori Douglas is a judge on the Superior (officially called Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba), which is, more or less, provincial wide (depending on the province), and even then isn't a court of binding precedent as appeals can still be made to the Provincial court of appeals.  This guy is a step below that on the Provincial Court.  That AfD should not be a precedent for this one, because their positions are not the same.  In elected political terms its like being a city councillor of a minor community (say Banff or Strathmore). Ravendrop 07:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm satisfied that POLITICIAN doesn't rescue Reilly, per Ravendrop's comments, but I'm not sure on the GNG question. There seem to be an awful lot of ghits to reach that conclusion lightly. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a fairly common name. I did have a lengthy look through many of those, but most were about different people, and those I did find on him only mentioned him in passing as presiding judge, or giving some opinion.  Nothing was in-depth about him to satisfy WP:GNG.  Have you found anything?  I'm always more than happy to change my !vote if sources can be provided to prove he passes GNG.  Ravendrop 20:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Some changes has been made to the article, giving some background on Reilly's history as a judge as well as more recent events. Refs added.  Not sure if that helps make the case for notability;  hopefully it still maintains NPOV as well.  Let me know.  CFV2 (talk) 03:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - He seems to meet the general notability guideline based on this which starts with "The longest-serving provincial court judge in Alberta...". The whole article is devoted to him.  It's not a passing mention.  The fact he is a candidate is a really side issue, which we should largely ignore (for the purposes of the AFD).  --Rob (talk) 03:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep - meets general notability per above and the references currently on the page, sufficient publicc importance and verifiable coverage, Sadads (talk) 07:05, 20 April 2011 (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.