Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Bjorkman


 * 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 05:27, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Tim Bjorkman

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per WP:POLITICIAN, being a candidate does not establish notability. Vexations (talk) 13:59, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. TMGtalk 14:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. TMGtalk 14:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Um, he's already an elected official? Being a candidate does not establish notability, I agree with that. He's a retired judge, who's been appointed by the Governor of the state and has won multiple reelections?
 * Koncurrentkat (talk) 16:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I think you hopped the gun on this early, but we can remedy this by closing this discussion early. See the criterion below:


 * Delete he hasn't held statewide office as a judge and isn't otherwise notable. SportingFlyer  talk  16:52, 16 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Where does it say, it must be a statewide office. It is a state office that is reelected from his circuit, much like a state legislator. A circuit court office, in a circuit court system, is much broader geographically than a typical trial level judge or a state legislator's territory-therefore he's patently notable. Latently, he's candidate for an at-large (state-wide if you will) Congressional District, so he has received significantly more media coverage than a typical Congressional candidate. Koncurrentkat (talk :02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It says specifically in WP:NPOL that the office or judicial position must be statewide. His judicial position only covers several counties, unlike a state appellate judge or supreme court justice. Furthermore, we typically do not keep candidates who are running for office. While you are correct a state legislator only represents a small area as well, they represent that area in a statewide legislature. South Dakota does not get a notability waiver for only having one congressional district. SportingFlyer  talk  18:41, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm aware running for Congress does not automatically qualify for a wikipedia page, I agree with you on that point (Despite it saying, "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article") However it does say, "Just being an elected local official....does not guarantee notability." He's by definition a state official by the State of South Dakota. Generally, if your territory is multi-county that is by defintion a state official rather than a county official. If we're going by other criterion of state official v. local official-his circuit court district encompasses 15 counties, which is hardly local. Show me what makes him a local official in the wiki definitions:
 * He may be paid by the state to be a circuit court judge, but he does not hold a statewide judicial role per WP:NPOL. Circuit courts are the general trial courts for South Dakota, they're not special courts just because they encompass multiple counties because it's a rural part of the world. SportingFlyer  talk  23:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It is a statewide office. By definition he is not a local official, but a state official. Where does it say it must be required to be statewide? They are benched in their circuit, they can preside statewide. Do you have an example of a trial level judge page being deleted? Koncurrentkat (talk) 01:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It says it in the first sentence of WP:NPOL that they have to be statewide. He is not a statewide judge, he is a trial court judge representing several counties. The fact he is qualified to be a judge in a specific district is irrelevant. We do not presume trial court judges notable. There aren't many AfDs on the matter, but this appears to be the most recent: SportingFlyer  talk  04:21, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Local politicians

 * Municipal politicians are not inherently notable just for being in politics, but neither are they inherently non-notable just because they are in local politics. Each case is evaluated on its own individual merits. Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD, although the article should say more than just "Jane Doe is the mayor of Cityville". Mayors of smaller towns, however, are generally deemed not notable just for being mayors, although they may be notable for other reasons in addition to their mayoralty (e.g. having previously held a more notable office). Note that this criterion has not generally been as restrictive as the criterion for city councillors. City councillors and other major municipal officers are not automatically notable, although precedent has tended to favor keeping members of the main citywide government of internationally famous metropolitan areas such as Toronto, Chicago, Tokyo, or London. Losing candidates for municipal election are not considered inherently notable just for their candidacy and are generally deleted unless previous notability can be demonstrated.
 * American county-level legislators are considered to be similarly not-inherently notable just like municipal politicians.
 * Local politicians whose office would not ordinarily be considered notable may still clear the bar if they have received national or international press coverage, beyond the scope of what would ordinarily be expected for their role. For example, a small-town mayor or city councillor who was the first LGBT person ever elected to office in their country, or who emerged as a significant national spokesman for a political issue, may be considered notable on that basis. Note that this distinction may not simply be asserted or sourced to exclusively local media; to claim notability on this basis, the coverage must be shown to have nationalized or internationalized well beyond their own local area alone.
 * Koncurrentkat (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)


 * from WP:NPOL:

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:42, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete mercifully, per nomination. Subject fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. -The Gnome (talk) 10:52, 23 June 2018 (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.