Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juliet Schmidt


 * 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   speedy delete. Clear case of BLP undue; she would not otherwise be notable, and the matter is minor. I am relatively reluctant to use this provision for deletion except in the most obvious cases, of which this is one;   DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Juliet Schmidt

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'm nominating this on behalf of a newer user that isn't entirely familiar with all of the deletion processes at this point in time. The rationale behind the request for deletion is as follows: (taken from the PROD) "I would like the entire entry deleted ASAP. It is a violation of personal privacy; created without permission of Ms. Schmidt. She works in the criminal justice system and initiates criminal complaints against dangerous individuals with her name signed on those complaints--this listing is a potential danger to her personal safety. The information submitted to the press and published in the LA Times was inaccurate and provided by an opposing counsel to sully her reputation. Subsequent to the publishing of the articles, she was exonerated as having done nothing unethical. Therefore, since the biography suggests unethical conduct, this material is potentially libelous." I'm relatively neutral about the whole thing for the most part, although I did request a speedy when the article had been blanked to remove what I'd assumed was the libelous content. Since the editor is still interested in progressing the deletion of this entry, I'm submitting it here for discussion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, while I have concerns about the WP:UNDUE on the accusations it DID garner coverage in reliable sources and the person does seem to have some notability. As far as security risks that is something they know going into those jobs may happen and is a non issue for me. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete for failing WP:GNG. She was accused of bad judgment bordering on the unethical, which doesn't even rise to WP:ONEEVENT. None of the other references spotlight this deputy DA, but rather the cases she was working on. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with Clarityfiend: most of the coverage is entirely WP:ROUTINE, merely mentioning that she was acting as a lawyer; there's only one event in which she was more prominently involved, a minor case of alleged corruption which is too insignificant to qualify as a notable event, and she's not notable for being involved in it. The argument about security risks is questionable - Wikipedia has plenty of articles on people doing more dangerous jobs and there's still plenty of information about her online and e.g. in legal directories - but she's not notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - I have searched for more information on Juliet Schmidt. The sources currently in the article do not establish notablity.  Only 3 of them are even about her, the rest mention her as part of a case.  Two of sources that are about her are both about the same event but there is never any followup to show continued coverage.  The 3rd source is just the California bar record and doesn't go to establishing notability.  I could not find any additional info about her in any sources.  This appears to be someone who does not meet our notability standards. GB fan 13:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. The sources cited do not a biography make, and my searches for more come up empty.  (The sources cited don't even support the content they are cross-linked to.  The "numerous appearances" in the newspapers is not actually mentioned in those newspapers cited as purported sources, and the "appearances", presuming that the reader is intended to draw this original conclusion directly rather than confirm it from sources, are neither numerous nor even centre-stage.)  This person's life and work simply hasn't been properly documented outwith wikipedia in the first place to the extent that a full biographical encyclopaedia article can be properly written. Uncle G (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 13:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 13:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 13:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Los Angeles County District Attorney (which could just as easily be the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, where even the current district attorney, let alone any deputy attorneys, have their own articles. maybe a brief mention there would be possible.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as not passing WP:GNG. The lady simply is not notable. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, subject does not appear to be notable as there is not sufficient significant coverage in multiple reliable sources of the subject herself, and thus fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. There is an event which received some coverage in a reliable source, but the event is not notable itself, and thus, even if the subject were found to be notable within the context of the non-notable event the biography article would be merged into the non-existent article of the non-notable event per WP:BLP1E.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Almost seems like self promotion. Simply not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.17.102.92 (talk) 03:00, 7 January 2013 (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.