Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Law

David Fleischer (judge) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of the article is not notable enough to warrant an article. WP:JUDGE notes that local elected officials are not presumed to be notable merely by their status. WP:SUSTAINED notes that notable topics must "have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time"; the sources in this article indicate that the subject of the article is only known for one event (chastising police in reference 6 by Yasmeen) and the rest of the sources are interviews or entries in databases like the state bar. WP:BLP1E applies here as Fleischer is only known for one event. Artwhitemaster (talk) 05:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Law. Artwhitemaster (talk) 05:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think the notable thing about this guy is that he's on the streaming sites and getting attention for his videos. ABC News recently did a piece on him[1]. He got other coverage in either June or October (website gives both) in the Atlanta Black Star[2]. There's very little secondary stuff out there about him that I could identify. Oblivy (talk) 06:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The videos are just live-streams and video clips from his court duties, which I would say are primary sources. All the news articles about him are from selected incidents of his "best moments" calling out dubious legal evidence, like the incident that generated all that media coverage in October, which feels like a WP:BLP1E moment where he has his 15 minutes of fame, generates some secondary sources, and remains low-profile. Artwhitemaster (talk) 09:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  To clarify, I'm not saying he's wikipedia notable just that he has some notability and it's not merely being a humble judge as the nomination suggests. The sourcing is an issue. Oblivy (talk) 09:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He's a pretty popular judge on YouTube where several channels cover his court proceedings. He also has his own channel where he live streams his court room. In this interview with him he talks about, among other things, his part in bail reform and other judicial reform in Texas (it's linked as a reference already, but only for bits of his personal life). Towards the end, the interview also touches on that it's pretty unique for a judge to live stream court. He responds that he does it for transparency and educational purposes to let people see how the system works and what the consequences could be, and that teachers have reached out to him regarding using his streams in classrooms. Xxc3nsoredxx (talk) 06:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I feel like the fact that several channels simply clip and repost his courtroom stream doesn't really do much in terms of notability, since I would consider them primary sources that aren't about him. Should every judge on Court Cam have their own wiki page? Him having his own YouTube channel also doesn't matter since the source is not independent from the subject - not even mentioning that it's not a source for the article. As for the interview, IMO his opinions on judicial reform have no bearing on whether or not to delete the article. Artwhitemaster (talk) 09:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I would argue that at least some channels go beyond simply reposting. They provide an avenue for discussing specific cases/outcomes, (light) editorializing by giving a brief summary of what they think are specific points of interest, as well as commentary on how they think he's growing as a professional and where he might be falling short. I would consider it a point towards notability that others take the time to analyze his character. Xxc3nsoredxx (talk) 02:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I thought he met the general notability criteria rather than the criteria under judge. But I agree that it's not amazing sourcing. ^SMason_Garrison 13:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Demeter Ritter von Tuschinski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I’m sending these two articles to AfD upon the suggestion of another user who requested assistance in doing so. For the moment, I have no particular opinion on the matter, though I may vote as the discussion progresses. Biruitorul ^Talk 21:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page:

Constantin Ritter von Tuschinski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Delete. Article on a minor local official, clearly does not meet WP:GNG. Created by a relative as part of a family history project and including much WP:OR. See for example (at the foot of the article): Demeter von Tuschinski's great-grandson Alexander Tuschinski (*1988 in Stuttgart) is a film director and historian. As of 2024, he is researching Demeter von Tuschinski's life and plans to publish a scholarly biography of him. In November 2023, he gave his first public lecture on his research at Bukowina-Institut an der Universität Augsburg, in which he presented the first comprehensive biographical overview of his great-grandfather to date.[citation needed]. Axad12 (talk) 21:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• As the author, I object the deletion, as I am certain notability is firmly established in both cases:

Demeter Ritter von Tuschinski was the highest-ranking Romanian civil servant (edited: English terminology corrected), in interwar Romanian Cernauti, and he was constantly present in public sources until 1940. The Wikipedia article names only some of the approx. 2000 press articles that exist. If he is not considered notable, then, by that logic, no state officials and public figures of equal or lower ranks from interwar Cernauti/Bukovina or other major Romanian cities/regions would be notable enough for Wikipedia. By extension, most people named here would have to be deleted: [Category:20th-century_Romanian_judges] - which cannot be the goal of Wikipedia.

Constantin Ritter von Tuschinski, for example, in the 1960s-80s published in both of the two most major, widely circulated and heavily curated German-language Romanian cultural magazines of the era, Volk und Kultur and Neue Literatur. Romanian press wrote about his plays. If none of that is "notable" it would mean that suddenly, many authors who published there and shaped the German-language Romanian 1960s-80s cultural scene would be stripped of their notability, which would (seemingly at random) suddenly exclude a huge part of majorly published Romanian German-language culture from Wikipedia. I plan at some point to create pages for those magazines and other authors who published there - and I am convinced of their notability, particularly given the strict regulations for publishing in Socialist Romania. I'm currently researching the magazine "Volk und Kultur" and its archive for the second volume of Constantin's collected works.

I am Demeter Ritter von Tuschinski's great-grandson, which I always openly stated when creating the articles. Both Demeter and Constantin passed away before I was born. I created and researched both articles over several months, and I am currently getting my PhD in history at University Innsbruck about Demeter Ritter von Tuschinski's biography. I wrote the articles in a neutral and academic way, careful to not write a subjective view, but only to quote from sources, much like I write my PhD dissertation. I intend to expand both in the future. Except for Axad12 (who recently added a COI tag and told me he would nominate my account to be blocked if I ever wrote about a relative on Wikipedia again), I heard no objections to the articles, and the objections he voiced on his talk page refer to me being related, not on the content of the article. I believe articles shall be judged independently of who the author is. Every part in the articles is supported by a footnote - the one part Axad12 quotes with [citation needed] originally had a reference to an academic presentation I had held, that another editor removed, and which I plan to replace with a link to a current press article after the deletion discussion. ATuschinski (talk) 00:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a brief note to correct what appears to be a misunderstanding on the part of the editor above. I did not tell him that I would nominate [his] account to be blocked if [he] ever wrote about a relative on Wikipedia again. What I have said to him, several times now, is that editors with a COI should use the COI edit request process rather than editing the relevant articles directly, and that if he continues to edit such articles directly (including articles about himself and his film projects) after being advised not to do so on multiple occasions then I shall report the matter to either WP:COIN or WP:ANI, in which case it would be reasonable to assume that his account may be blocked.

However, I do thank the editor above for confirming that much of the work on both of his two family history articles are based on his own original research (i.e. WP:OR).

I would also note that notability, from Wikipedia's standpoint, is based on specific criteria and not on a family member's subjective opinion on whether his family members were 'notable'. Axad12 (talk) 07:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Axad12, perhaps it's a misunderstanding, since I am confident you use the WP:OR argument incorrectly here: The extend of my original research can be seen in the footnotes of the articles - mostly links to digitized newspapers, and many weeks of browsing through them online, in addition to newspapers and books available at libraries. I link to the online sources wherever possible. If that were not allowed on Wikipedia, nobody could add or edit anything that requires research in sources that are available online or at libraries. Only at very few spots, I refer to archival files, including their signature (if available) for people curious to check them out. By now, if prefered by the community, I could even replace all of the few archival footnotes with ones to a book I recently published, which is currently added to major libraries. Constantin's bibliography that I made you aware of, which you likely have in mind saying "based on his original research", I was able to put together after months of research in Cluj library's public holdings and by browsing Romanian pre-1984 journals. Anyone can read them at respective libraries; I identified and mention each one in a footnote. Again, if that were against Wikipedia's standards, nobody could add anything gathered from browsing books or journals to this encyclopedia. ATuschinski (talk) 09:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Material in archival files is not published material.

Generally speaking it would be better here if you were to make an argument for the subjects fulfilling the notability criteria.

The purpose of these articles is clearly hagiographical and to promote your family history project (just as all of your edits are to promote yourself in some way or other). Axad12 (talk) 10:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as per previous promotional attempts by an account who was presumably your paid publicist, as noted in detail here [3]. Axad12 (talk) 10:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Axad12, I argued for the notability in my response, and I believe I never use "a family menber's subjective opinion", but argue with notability criteria within a framework of Romanian history and society. By now, it is for other wikipedia editors to decide about notability and quality of the articles in this discussion. This discussion is about the two articles, their content and notability - not about the author and his presumed motives as you now start speculating about. We both made our points, now others can decide.

Since you now made a wrong presumption and a false claim about me personally, I have to respond to those, but then I will drop the topic: I never employed a publicist on Wikipedia, I find your presumption offensive, and I ask you to stay on topic of notability and quality of the articles you asked to be deleted - about which you already made statments. Your claim "all of your edits are to promote yourself in some way or other" is false and offensive to the work I have put into Wikipedia for many years in several languages: I have made many accurate edits to topics close to my interests, in various languages, never "promotional" in tone and nature, and I feel strongly the term does not apply: I don't see how, e.g., neutrally worded thorough academic research on my great-grandfather, a civil servant in pre-WW2 Romania, promotes me, a German film director born in 1988. Or me digitizing and adding a photo of Servais Le Roy and Talma I found in a publication? Or adding museums in Vienna that display artifacts of Maximilian I of Mexico? Or expanding and correcting the site of the Order of the Crown of Romania greatly with accurate details? In the latter case, I got initially interested as I had a very clear 1930s photo of Demeter Ritter von Tuschinski wearing the medal that I felt could expand the page well - then, I discovered the page on Wikipedia being very incomplete and partially incorrect, and then I started expanding it with true historical information for a while, so now, it is much more complete and accurate - nothing "promotional" could come from that work for me. Or even edits to the page about me, which I carefully expanded with facts and sources in a neutral, non-promotional tone to make it more accurate, always disclosing my identity, etc.

On your talk page, there is a long discussion you had about me and my presumed motives where you, e.g., argued for deletion of my full, true legal name, date of birth etc. from the Wikipedia site about me which you then deleted - anyone interested in discussing or learning backgrounds could continue there. This discussion here, I believe, shall discuss quality and notability of the two articles you proposed for deletion, which is independent of presumptions about the author, and both you and I already made our points.

For the sake of making this discussion not overlong, I hereby respectfully withdraw from our conversation here, thank you for making your points on notability and quality, I made my points, now others can discuss and I will respond where appropriate. ATuschinski (talk) 12:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: WP:BLUDGEON. Axad12 (talk) 13:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Demeter was, perhaps, the highest-ranked civil servant in Cernauti. He was not the highest-ranked state official: after all, the city had a mayor, representatives in parliament, a prefect, and so on. Let’s be precise. Biruitorul ^Talk 08:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Biruitorul, thanks for the correction, please excuse my mixup in terminology - I did mean to say "civil servant", of course. I guess even though I am careful, that little slip in wording reveals I am not an English native speaker: I translated the German term "Staatsbeamter", that was named in the German-language source, which literally translates to "state official", but the correct translation is "civil servant" :-) I just did correct that terminology in the intro of the article, as well - in the body, I already wrote the correct term "civil servant". Thanks for bringing it to attention. ATuschinski (talk) 09:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Law, Military, and Romania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Not sure what the details are of the court he served as the president of are, but generally appellate court judges would be considering notable under WP:JUDGE as state/province wide officials (appellate courts are usually at a state/province level). There may be an argument Demeter meets WP:NPOL depending on how the court functioned. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 21:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  On a strict reading of the guideline, I don’t think that’s the case: “international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office”. Romania has never been a federal state, its provinces are symbolic/historical with no administrative powers, and its only national court at the time was the High Court of Cassation and Justice. There are 15 appeals courts (12 in the interwar period), but their judges are generally anonymous figures. He could still be notable per ANYBIO, but I don’t see a JUDGE argument here. Biruitorul ^Talk 23:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

J. Steven Svoboda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article about a lawyer and activist has been tagged with too much reliance on primary sources since 2016. I have carried out WP:BEFORE and added what I can, but am not seeing significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. I do not think the article meets WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Tacyarg (talk) 23:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, Sexuality and gender, United States of America, and California. Tacyarg (talk) 23:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - total lack of significant coverage. This is far below what we demand for a BLP, especially an Attorney. This is also just a coat rack for an issue that is best suited for a focused article. Bearian (talk) 03:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Probably keep - He's a recognized child genital cutting expert, at least for endosex male minors. He has written, probably a lot, in academic journals on matters of law and children's rights surrounding the highly controversial topic of non-therapeutic endosex male child circumcision (partially or full surgical removal of the penile foreskin, which is about one-third of the "motile skin system" of the penis). Also, he has contributed to, and signed, two large international child genital cutting experts statements (in 2024 and 2019), published in the American Journal of Bioethics: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15265161.2024.2353823 and https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15265161.2019.1643945 Chrono1084 (talk) 15:15, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 22:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: You get a few hits in GScholar, would that be enough to pass academic notability? Not sure what the citation factor for this person is. Oaktree b (talk) 01:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]