Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Magistrate Judges


 * 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. Probably mostly because the list is very bad. The notability discussion appears odd to me, because we are not discussing whether these judges each deserve an article of their own, only whether they deserve a list. But this discussion does not rule out adding such lists to the articles about the individual courts.  Sandstein  16:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

United States Magistrate Judges

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is merely a (very incomplete) list of individuals who are largely nonnotable (as expressed by DGG here ). Many magistrates are part-time Magistrate. JJL (talk) 01:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as noted: it seems that being appointed by the appointed federal judge really doesn't make these people qualify as those who have held national political office. I'm assuming that some people who have held this office have gone on to hold higher office or become notable otherwise, so a category would be useful, but a list of these people isn't.  Nyttend (talk) 01:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete If DGG says it's not notable it should be deleted, twice. ChildofMidnight (talk) 10:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm... The list has the potential to be useful and interesting and honestly, I like it. It wouldn't hurt us to keep it, as a list is better than a category for this.  Unfortunately, those are all the exact wrong reasons to keep an article.  Delete because my personal observations aren't policy, and per DGG's  previous comment which succinctly explains the existing consensus in these matters.  Additionally, I would strongly disagree with ChildofMidnight and state that a single deletion is sufficient, but only because I enjoy disagreeing with him on occasion.  D ENNIS B ROWN  (T) (C) 15:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It will be interesting to see whether the famous (infamous?) DGG weighs in. I reread his comments in the other matter, and I believe his opinion is fairly represented. But do magistrates as a group become notable? It seems that you found it so DB. I will await DGG's judgement to further the current discussion, but I stand ready to switch sides if this information is deemed encyclopedic and notable as per your thoughts. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Upon re-viewing teh article I changed my mind. No dates. Very scattershot. I think it's a problem in its current form. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to Magistrate. United States Magistrate probably ought to redirect there also, while it occurs to me. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment no objection to a rd. I considered it but thought it was a less likely search term than the rd you created for United States Magistrate. I had been searching for U.S. Magistrate (but without the periods the first time). JJL (talk) 15:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete I may possibly have been wrong about whether they were individually notable, and the matter needs a more general discussion. My personal opinion continues to be that they are not individually notable as a matter of course, though it is possible that the chief magistrate of each district is notable.  I am not an authority on the federal judicial system, and the opinion I gave in another matter was a restatement of what is well established for US District court judges, but I see now there has never been a real discussion of the matter of the magistrates, & I may have incorrectly  assumed consensus there. Certainly their names will appear in newspapers in connection with cases, but the question will be the significance of their role. Certainly, unlike US district judges, their decisions are not reported and do not set precedents--that would be the argument against the individuals being routinely notable. Some of course will be in any case -- such as Alan J. Baverman.  I certainly did not mean to cut off discussion of that.  We do not go by authority here--everyone makes mistakes, and in this case, I am simply unsure.  In any case, although they are not notable individually,the question is whether the list violates NOT DIRECTORY or whether, since there are relatively few of them,   this is appropriate background information. Perhaps it would be better to add this information to the articles on the individual district courts. Three is room for great expansion there, andthere are certainly very full sources available. DGG (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Your idea: Perhaps it would be better to add this information to the articles on the individual district courts. sounds reasonable, as it still allows the information to exist but in a format that is more accessible and wouldn't rely on individual notability. (which I think is lacking, regardless of utility) Most people would be looking for this information by district anyway.  I guess you could convert this to disambig page listing the states articles, or not?    D ENNIS B ROWN  (T) (C) 19:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you guys volunteering to maintain state by state lists? Sometimes you just have to let go... ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I am saying Delete, and that is where the information should go if someone wants to include it. After deleting, if someone wanted to make this a disambig page instead of a list, fine. I have no strong opinion either way.  D ENNIS B ROWN  (T) (C) 18:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I know I am in the minority, the list is incomplete (bad) but of people with specified terms of office (8 years) who wield substantial influence in the federal court system. I suspect many mayors are less notable. Collect (talk) 15:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * At the very least their terms need to be included. At least that way we'd know if the people on the list were current or not. I strongly oppose keeping this article. Trying to make Wikipedia into a useful directory is noble, but it isn't pragmatic. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Many lists are on WP now. Many of less notable categories of people. Collect (talk) 17:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * My issue isn't with the list per se. But that it requires constant maintenance and updating, not to mention that it should include dates and isn't complete. Who's going to maintain it? I just don't think it's a prudent effort. A list of province, or presidents, or buildings over 40 stories doesn't require the same kind of upkeep. I think that's why there's an aversion to becoming a phone book. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It would actually be easier to maintain than a list of Ambassadors. Which WP happens to have -- in plenitude.  It would have under five hundred names in all likelihood, and, since most new Federal judges are nominated from the list of Federal magistrates, it would allow give people an inkling of who might be named to the bench in the future. http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/CACD/JudgeReq.nsf/FAQs+about+Judges'+Procedures+and+Schedules?OpenView is a list for the 9th circuit, the largest. Collect (talk) 18:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:33, 16 November 2008 (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.