Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supreme Justice with Judge Karen


 * 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 redirect to Entertainment Studios. This is the centre of the rationales and redirects are cheap. There is consensus that 's sources shown don't display any notability (non-admin closure)  J 947  18:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Supreme Justice with Judge Karen

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article should be deleted as it is not notable under the WP:GNG. Reference #2 in the article is a youtube search for the subject and Reference #1 is the show's official website. A WP:BEFORE search did not give any reliable sources (only sources like IMDb). -KAP03(Talk &bull;&#32;Contributions) 19:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Entertainment Studios, the producer of the series; utterly generic court show which doesn't litigate (or even arbitrate) actual cases and instead uses actors to perform California small claims court transcripts.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 09:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * RE: "utterly generic court show which doesn't litigate (or even arbitrate) actual cases and instead uses actors to perform California small claims court". Does that matter?  Are the shows like Judge Judy, Divorce Court or The People's Court (that are obviously notable) that are equally generic any better?  Our articles describe those three as "arbitration-based reality court shows".  But they are not even close to a real trial.  But even if you and I think the shows are not impressive, does it matter?  It's whether they are discussed in WP:RS per WP:GNG (and WP:BROADCAST) that determines notability, right?  --David Tornheim (talk) 23:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The difference is that the jurists on those shows actually adjudicate the cases presented before them in some form, even if in arbitration. The court shows from Entertainment Studios like this one merely take public domain court transcripts and have actors play them out while a former jurist acts as an 'authority' figure to sell it to stations, along with schedule filling on ES's Justice Central channel. You can't get on this show unless you have SAG-AFTRA representation and are a working actor, even if you have the most compelling case ever. With real arbitrated court shows we can definitely get more sources involving litigants talking about experiences; here there's just no there there because of the usual 'names changed so any resemblance to real life is coincidental' obscuring so that a Pomona eviction dispute on the show will be muddled to the point of anonymity.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 02:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mifter (talk) 00:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 14:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: Meets WP:BROADCAST.  Please consider additionally these RS:  news and books + .  Pinging:,   --David Tornheim (talk) 22:51, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 'Comment They definitely don't discuss the show in detail though, and most of them are of the 'this is what's coming this fall (boilerplate from show's PR)' variety of writing with very little follow-up after its premiere. It hasn't had any moments that have attracted any pop culture attention. Like all of the producer's shows, it's a sanitized court show using actors to re-enact transcripts so by design, it'll never have an 'it' moment making it stand out in any way.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 02:18, 10 March 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.