Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kandis Westmore


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. ✗ plicit  10:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Kandis Westmore

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

Delete per WP:USCJN - [Magistrate judges] are.. "not inherently notable" and per consensus at WP:Articles for deletion/Margaret J. Schneider; 15 of the 34 citations on the page relate to two opinions she authored and verge on WP:CITEKILL Snickers2686 (talk) 22:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  23:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Law,  and California.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  23:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: Found some passing mentions about this person, but not much more than that. Subject does not pass WP:JUDGE or WP:GNG. User:Let'srun 01:29, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Strong Delete - The article on Kandis Westmore, while providing information about a United States magistrate judge, does not establish notability beyond the position held. According to WP:USCJN, magistrate judges are not inherently notable, and the subject does not meet the specific notability criteria outlined in WP:JUDGE or the general notability guideline (WP:GNG). The citations provided are primarily related to opinions authored by the subject, which may not be sufficient for establishing notability without significant independent coverage. The use of numerous citations for a couple of opinions also raises concerns about WP:CITEKILL where an excessive number of citations may overwhelm the content and suggest an attempt to assert notability through quantity rather than quality of sources. As such, the article does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability standards and would be more appropriately covered within the context of a broader article, unless further reliable and independent sources can be found to establish notability.
 * PD Slessor (talk) 09:57, 13 December 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.