Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Buettner


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 07:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Kenneth Buettner

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject appears to fail GNG. I found no evidence of sources demonstrating notability. Lepricavark (talk) 17:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Being an appellate court judge can be a notability criterion, if he can be properly sourced as the subject of enough media coverage to clear WP:GNG, but it is not an automatic inclusion freebie that entitles the judge to keep an unsourced article just because his profile on the court's own self-published website nominally verifies that he exists. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. judge of the Highest level of state   appellate courts is notable, but not necessarily below that.  DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly notable per WP:POLITICIAN as a judge who holds a statewide office. An official website is clearly not "self-published" and is a perfectly reliable source. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * A source cannot support notability if it has any form of direct affiliation with the subject. I didn't say the court's website was "self-published" by him — but it is self-published by the organization that employs him, which is still a direct affiliation. People do not get a notability freebie just by having a staff profile on the website of their own employer — they get in the door by having enough media coverage to clear GNG. Bearcat (talk) 16:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It can however confirm that he holds the post and his biographical details, which was my point. I notice you haven't addressed WP:POLITICIAN, an established notability guideline! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * DGG's comment above you is entirely correct about the relationship of WP:POLITICIAN to judges on intermediate-level courts — there's no automatic presumption of notability for all judges below the highest level of an appellate court. Going by this court's article, there's only one other judge with an article besides Buettner, and even that article has quite a bit more substance (although not brilliant sourcing) beyond just stating that she exists, which is all that's present here. A good article about an appellate court judge, sure, by all means — but there's exactly zero value in a boilerplate article which just says the subject exists, the end.
 * And even for the levels of political office where we do extend an automatic presumption of notability to all holders, we don't do so because they're somehow exempted from having to pass WP:GNG — we do that because we know for a fact that they always pass GNG. Even if an article about a state or federal legislator is technically inadequate in its existing form, we know that they do get enough coverage to pass GNG and their articles are always improvable accordingly — but the article gets the pass because it's improvable, not because it's in any way exempted from having to be improved. It has yet to be shown, however, that Buettner (or any other judge at his level) has the necessary degree of sourceability to be improvable from where this is right now. Bearcat (talk) 19:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems you're interpreting WP:POLITICIAN as saying what you want it to say. But it doesn't. It says all judges who hold statewide office (which he clearly does, as a judge of a central appellate court which deals with the whole state as opposed to a part of the state) are notable. It's quite clear. It's not open to interpretation. It says nothing about only the top-level appellate judges being notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not "interpreting" anything in terms of what I want it to say. AFD has an established consensus that (a) lower-level courts don't enjoy the same presumption of notability that higher ones do, and (b) the articles still have to be sourced, and are not exempted from having to have reliable source coverage just because a notability claim has been asserted. Bearcat (talk) 15:30, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   17:01, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete If we had several sources showing this judges actions were impactful, we could keep the article. However, at this level judges are not treated as statewide office holders, but as local ones. In the same way we do not create articles on all trustees of universities that are elected statewide and similar positions. Statewide office holders in the judicial sense means members of the state supreme court, or equivalently named similar court.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:02, 24 November 2017 (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.