Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael T. Sullivan


 * 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Michael T. Sullivan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:JUDGE. Note- Wisconsin Court of Appeals isn't a state wide position. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Per Deletion review/Log/2020 August 24
 * Delete per nom.  Royal broil  19:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete since he wasn't in a state wide position and there isn't multiple in-depth reliable sources about him anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep the barely articulated rationale here is not sufficient for deletion. The notability guidance referenced in earlier comments are not the minimum standard for an article to be retained (otherwise half of Wikipedia would be deleted)&mdash;they're standards to confer automatic notability.  Failure to meet those automatic notability standards would not make an article automatically "not notable".  In fact, WP:USCJN states that membership on a state appellate court is "strong evidence of notability."  Additionally, from Wikipedia's editor policy on deletion considerations for notability: "The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth."  Simply put, the burden of proof in deletion discussion is on those seeking to delete the article.  The only review that seems to have been done here was a quick determination that the judge is not elected by a state-wide vote and the article does not in its present form contain "in-depth reliable sources" -- that is not sufficient work on the part of deletion advocates for their rationale to prevail.  There has been no effort on the part of deletion-votes to research news or legal journals which could substantiate the relevance of the article.  Furthermore, the "state-wide judge" guidance is being badly misapplied here&mdash;at least in Wisconsin, all published Appeals Court rulings have statewide effect and create statewide precedent, even though the judges are elected in four geographic regions for administrative purposes.  Only a fraction of their decisions are ever reviewed by the state supreme court.  The Appeals court is effectively the court of final review for more than 90% of cases in the state.  There's a vast difference between circuit judges, which are more like county officers, and appeals judges, whose decisions (in a simple 3-judge panel) can alter state law.  As a general rule every judge of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals is at least as notable as any Wisconsin state senator (1 of 33) or assemblymember (1 of 99), whose notability is simply presumed due to their membership in a state legislative body.  In U.S. media and politics there is a massive inclination to consider the role of legislators and ignore the role of judges in setting our laws and rights in this country -- the lack of good and reliable information and attention on judges has been a disservice to the public and Wikipedia should not encourage this pattern of lazy neglect.  --Asdasdasdff (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - Definitely passes general notability, so that this nomination has a pointy quality. Also agree with User:Asdasdasdff.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:34, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Robert McClenon can you point out the multiple reliable in-depth sources that would make this pass general notability? Also, it's a little ironic that your criticizing the pointyness of the nomination while citing Asdasdasdff's screed as if it's a legitimate guideline based comment and not just a long winded, trite personal attack of everyone that doesn't vote keep. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:44, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. No case made for deletion. By policy/guideline, simply holding the position is strong evidence of notability. No evidence to the contrary has been proffered. Strong evidence weighted against none must result in a keep outcome. Moreover, despite the blathering of editors who want to delete this article, there is further evidence of notability. The subject served on the court for twelve years. One would have to be remarkably innocent of knowledge of the US judicial system to believe that a judge could sit this long at this level without making decisions receiving press coverage and writing opinions that are reviewed, discussed, critiqued, etc. No doubt there are a small percentage of judges on this court who have insignificant tenures -- my home state was once notorious for promoting judges approaching imminent retirement to appellate level, whereupon they promptly took "senior" status, thereby boosting their retirement pay without more than token service on the court they were appointed to. This is not such a case.
 * Same cut and pasted comment, different AfD. I'm starting to think all you keep people cutting and pasting the vote comments are working together or something. Like I said in the other one none of the guidelines say anything about length of tenor. Your the one blathering by claiming they do. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - another judge who easily passes my standards for jurists. Bearian (talk) 12:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Random notability standards in your user space have no bearing on what's notable in Wikipedia or not. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:20, 15 September 2020 (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.