Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roderick cameron

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. (aeropagitica) (talk) 19:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roderick cameron

County judges are below the notability bar. Fails Geogre's law. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a county judge does not inherently make you unworthy of a Wiki page but Judge Cameron himself fails to establish uniqueness or notability. 2nd-youngest active judge in Wisconsin at the time of appointment doesn't cut it. SliceNYC 03:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is my first attempt at submitting an entry, so I will not be hurt by any decision rendered on my efforts. I will make the case for keeping the entry as Judge Cameron presided over a case that found its way to the State Supreme Court and was named "Case of the Month" by the Wisconsin Court System. Peace be with you all.--Wonderfunk 03:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO, Geogre's Law. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am leery of blanket claims like "All x are/are not notable", since that leads to lengthy arguments of the "Are not!" "Are too!" variety. Sticking to policy issues, the article fails to establish notability under WP:BIO, for not having multiple non-trivial articles by third parties. The fact he had a case go to the State Supreme Court is not particularly notable since that happens a lot (it's why state supreme courts exist); and, at most, it makes him notable only in Wisconsin (not a bad thing, but the rulings obviously don't bother anyone outside of State lines). Congratulations on the "Case of the Month" award, but as I understand the nature of that award, it will always be awarded, so it's not exactly a particularly demanding criterion. Tychocat 09:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep (note that this too fails Geogre's Law). If the article can be strengthened by more detail on why the initial ruling was noteworthy and why its being upheld by the Wisconsin Supreme Court is also noteworthy then it warrants retention; but keep is conditioned on strengthening the article. And come on folks—Geogre's Law is like Moore's Law—it is empirical and not predictive—I presume we only cite it in humor and certainly not as a serious reason for tossing an article. Williamborg (Bill) 22:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I suppose it's graceless of me to mention my law, so I won't, but I'm honored to be in such august company. Yes, it is humorous and empirical and a statement of correlation, but it's also predictive, because any article at a miniscule last name can't stay there. In other words, the least we can do is move the article to a proper spelling, so we'd pretty much have to motion for merge and redirect to Roderick Cameron (which doesn't exist yet). I think judges can be significant enough, and especially those who manage to get publicity through their rulings. This particular article does not offer verifiable evidence yet of such. Therefore, I move to delete with absolutely no prejudice against a properly lodged and verifiably significant article at the proper location. Geogre 01:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per User:Kinu. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 20:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.