Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary-Beth Sharp


 * 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. I find the notability is not inhereted argument persuasive and unrefuted. Daniel (talk) 10:28, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Mary-Beth Sharp

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

Unsure if meets notability criteria, and is overwhelmingly negative Nauseous Man (talk) 06:48, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * as an addendum to this, I believe that the image being used is probably copyright abuse. Nauseous Man (talk) 06:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

She is notable for more than one event. One, she is a judge. Two, Sharp was involved in a dispute with a fellow judge and coworker. Three, Sharp was discharged without conviction but ordered to pay $500 in compensation. Also are also multiple news articles about her with more than one different events. 0800cpc (talk — Preceding undated comment added 08:19, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, a case of WP:1E. Cinadon36 08:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, worse than that, most of the article appears to be about her son (and his dog). Notoriety, like notability, should not be inherited. If a judge drops his/her umbrella, it will make news; there's no reason why micro-scandals should fill the articles of WP. Elemimele (talk) 09:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep she has been the subject of in-depth national news coverage on three separate an completely occasions. WP:ONEEVENT can't be involved because there are three separate events. The last of the events was in the national news for an entire week. While I agree that the real-world blame for the events may lie with her son, the coverage is of her, and it's the coverage we're interested in here. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability is not inherited. Having a son that did something stupid and getting quoted on it does not make someone notable. At best this is a footnote in another article. Aircorn (talk) 10:53, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - you don't become notable because your son or your son's dog or your son's dog's fleas did or didn't do something. By the way, my dog ... Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep as there's plenty of coverage by reliable media which discusses the judge. If those articles mentioned her as routine coverage, that would be a different story, but several of the stories provide biographical details. I shall say it's irrelevant who the dog owner is; what matters is that Sharp is reported on. This is way beyond WP:ONEEVENT and WP:GNG is met. With regards to the addendum by Nauseous Man that there's something wrong with the photo licence, I cannot see that. As it's immaterial to this AfD, I will follow up on Nauseous Man's talk page but can say that there are other photos by this particular uploader that I shall put up for deletion.  Schwede 66  18:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If I can respond: that's precisely my point, this is completely routine coverage by judge standards. Because Judges stand for justice, newspapers (and their readers) love stories of judges - or their friends, associates and relatives - getting on the wrong side of the law. I'd imagine every judge in the world has a handful of such stories behind them. They only have to lose their bus-ticket or get a parking ticket and a newspaper will write an in-depth and accurate report about it. The standards of notability for judges have to be a bit higher. Really I'd like to see the judge actually guilty of something before I'd regard her crime as notable; in this case, the miscreant appears not to be the judge. Logically, if we're establishing notability based on the current news-stories, we'd be better justified in writing an article about the judge's son's dog! Elemimele (talk) 20:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As an update to my own comment, all five files uploaded by this user have now been deleted from Commons and the user has been blocked there for one week for copyvio.  Schwede 66  04:01, 1 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete going on the spirit of notability and vibe I have gotten from other AfD. Being involved in a dispute with a neighbour and having a son does not make one notable WP:BIOFAMILY. Every media commentator is not notable just because they get their name in the paper talking about things "unrelated" to themselves. One assumes the son was in all the articles as well, now if anyone asked him how he feels about his mothers neighborhood dispute we could have a page for him too. There is also a living bio problem here if the media is on a witch hunt and semi doxing relations of wrong doers we don't need to play along (WP:AVOIDVICTIM if we "pared back to a version that is ... on-topic" there is not much left). Dushan Jugum (talk) 19:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Looking for additional sources, all I find is routine coverage of trial decisions. Looking at the sources in the article, there is the barely-significant coverage of the dog-walking incident and the floodlight dispute, both of which are minor incidents of no importance. The multiple refs about her son and his partner flouting COVID protocols are not significant coverage of her. Not notable under WP:ANYBIO or WP:JUDGE, and I contend that though the type and extent of coverage in sources might be considered sufficient to satisfy the letter of WP:GNG, they do not meet the spirit of WP:BIO: the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note"—that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life.   Schazjmd   (talk)  22:28, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Is there anyone that is Mary-Beth Sharp lawyer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0800cpc (talk • contribs) 02:23, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * User:0800cpc are you the page creator and blocked user mentioned above, can you develop your argument. Dushan Jugum (talk) 05:08, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, the information is on this wiki mostly negative, however it is truthful facts, and it has been displayed in a very netural journalistic way. If this wikpedia page is deleted, censorship is being committed, of a living person. If we remove this page, people will turn to mainstream media for information; we are not incontrol of mainstream media so they could get away with twisting information. A judge is a very high profile person that makes important decisions that will shape society. If we censor information about a Judge, what happens if that Judge is corrupt? Corruption is overwhelmingly negative but it is the truth, so we can't say that because it is too "overwhelmingly negative". This page contains overwhelmingly negative information, however it is not say in a overwhelmingly negative tone. If this page is overwhelmingly negative and that doesn't comply with the rules, we can twist it to make it sound positive. Lastly, I am questioning the integrity of these articles for deletion; because people that have made submissions may have links with Judge Mary-Beth Sharp. As I can understand that Judge Mary-Beth Sharp would want this information about her censored, but Wikipedia doesn't support censorship. I live in New Zealand, so I can properly understand the situation better. comment added by 0800cpc (talk


 * Delete One event and notability more due to son and his dog. — NZFC  (talk) (cont)  02:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's a petty article. Could be one sentence in a general article about covid in NZ.  As to If we remove this page, people will turn to mainstream media for information; we are not incontrol of mainstream media so they could get away with twisting information, that's a ridiculous argument at the best of times, and anyway in this case all the citations are to mainstream media. Somej (talk) 05:41, 5 December 2021 (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.