Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juan Ramirez Jr.


 * 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Juan Ramirez Jr.

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Per WP:USCJN, state appellate judges are not inherently notable. BD2412 T 21:26, 22 February 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 05:43, 2 March 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:13, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  BD2412  T 21:26, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Florida. Shellwood (talk) 22:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * , you nominated for deletion four articles regarding judges (Juan Ramirez Jr.; Angel A. Cortiñas; David M. Gersten; Alan R. Schwartz), within the span of two minutes, with identical descriptions. Likewise, while you state in each that "state appellate judges are not inherently notable", you do not address why each individual judge is not notable; plenty of people are notable, even if not bestowed inherently by job title. With that in mind, and given that the AfD guidelines have a checklist of steps to carry out before nominating an article, what steps did you take to assess the notability of this particular judge before nominating the article for deletion? --Usernameunique (talk) 07:59, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Rather than copy-pasting one answer four times, I have answered with respect to all four at Articles for deletion/Alan R. Schwartz. BD2412  T 18:20, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete per nom, have given a rationale at Articles for deletion/Alan R. Schwartz where extensive discussion is to be found. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per individual discussions Articles for deletion/Alan R. Schwartz. BLPs need clearly Ind RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notabilty to avoid abuse. These do not meet that standard.  // Timothy :: talk  11:14, 17 March 2023 (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.