Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard S. Schmidt


 * 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.  Ron h jones (Talk) 01:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Richard S. Schmidt

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  AfD statistics)

Subject is a U.S. Bankruptcy Judge, a level of federal judge hired by the local District Court, rather than being appointed by the President. Our recent history has been to deem U.S. Bankruptcy Judges not inherently notable. There is nothing at all in this article to indicate any other basis of notability for the subject. bd2412 T 04:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The reason I added this stub was that Judge Schmidt presided over the final stages of the bankruptcy proceedings for ASARCO, which was the largest environmental-bankruptcy settlement in U.S. history ( for an account of the settlement; for Judge Schmidt's involvement).  I don't know whether including this on his stub would be sufficient to meet the notability standard; if so, I'll be happy to do it.  If not, go ahead and delete the article.  Please respond to this post though, because I'm going to wait to expand the stub until I hear whether someone thinks it should just be deleted anyway. W.stanovsky (talk) 19:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Has this judge participated in other cases of this scope? It seems from the articles that, although the ASARCO matter is substantial, the judge's position was essentially advisory - he examined the evidence and made recommendations to the District Judge, who has the power to make the actual decisions. Is this an accurate assessment? bd2412  T 19:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the point really is that there has never been a similar case of that scope, but he also worked on the bankruptcy of Pacific Lumber Company (also referenced at Mendocino Redwood Company) a few years ago (see, for example). I'm not deeply invested in this article though, and I'll happily defer to the judgment of more experienced article-deletion-considerers than myself. W.stanovsky (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Even involvement in a case of historic magnitude does not automatically make a participant notable. Surely the District Court judge who had the final say in the matter had law clerks who researched and produced draft opinions. But it is the District Court judge alone who decides what to do with the recommendations of the magistrate, and the research from the clerks. bd2412  T 18:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 00:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Weak Delete, a public servant doing their job. I've no doubt that he does it well, but that doesn't mean that he's notable.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC).
 * Comment - can any of you find more sources? Bearian (talk) 16:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sources for what? Even if everything claimed about this person is true, they are still not the final decision maker in any matter. bd2412  T 17:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll take that answer as saying there are no sources for him. Delete. Bearian (talk) 05:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge with United States bankruptcy court, Southern District of Texas. I looked in Judgepedia for an entry for Schmidt, and he doesn't have one there; if he's notable enough to be in Wikipedia, he should first at least be notable enough to get an entry there.  Edward Vielmetti (talk) 19:09, 26 December 2009 (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.