Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael T. Sauer


 * 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 no consensus. Significant improvements were made on May 10, after some of the delete votes, so I think we can read this debate as moving toward "keep." Chick Bowen 22:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Michael T. Sauer

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

One low level case, even if it is a high profile case for tabloids, does not establish (encyclopedic) notability for a judge. Sloan21 17:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sauer also argued Cohen v. California before the U.S. Supreme Court.  That case is studied by anyone who takes Constitutional Law II (First Amendment) in law school!  --Coolcaesar 17:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Everything that might be notable about his involvement in Cohen v. California could be mentioned in that article. Right now, his name is not mentioned once on that page. Simply being associated with something notable does not establish notability. Sloan21 17:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Not enough for WP:BIO. Both notable cases he has been involved in can be (and are) perfectly adequately covered on their relevant pages.  No need for a separate article. A1octopus 18:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I would say that having an entire LA Times article written about how notable you are should be worth something. Also, he is notable for holding celebrities accountable for their actions. If the judge from the Anna Nicole Smith (Larry Seidlin) can have his own article, why not this judge?  Dothisthing 18:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Dothisthing, inclusion is not notability. Please see arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. --Dhartung | Talk 20:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a nice essay, but it is not policy. My argument is still valid however, because it seeks consistency.Dothisthing 20:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, this is celebcruft, in the same way that groupie articles are. The assumption seems to be that anyone who touches a notable person in some way is notable. That notion is false. --Dhartung | Talk 20:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I hardly think that a judge who argued before the Supreme Court is a groupie. Why exactly is this notion false? and what is celebcruft? Dothisthing 20:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete He is a random judge behind a bench in a celebrity case. Mangoe 21:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is an arbitrary large number of judges in the United States justice system. Should it be acceptable for every single judge to have an article here on Wikipedia just because they ruled on a case? I think the answer is no. High profile cases such as the O.J. Simpson trials might warrant a page for Lance Ito. A page for Michael Sauer just because he sentenced Paris to jail doesn't really provide him any notoriety. Tigerman81 05:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as a notable person and an article that can be improved by proper sourcing. Per WP:BIO: Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Deletion is not cleanup, and should not be used as "cleanup with a deadline". If you can't firmly cite policy, you probably should not be making comments in the deletion process. This judge has received a lot of press in the past week about just him and I’ll go out on a limb and say he will get even more as the appeals process runs its course. Aboutmovies 08:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It is notable per WP:BIO Brian | (Talk) 22:42, 10 May 2007 (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.