Deletion of William Adams (judge)

Comment: Among other things, .  I should note  has three cases of notability regarding elected officials "who have received significant press coverage" or have had "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".  So while all the debate has been about the first case for politics ("politician"), there are two additional definitions which can define him as a notable for politics ("politician
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:POLITICIAN)

Comment: per , If this was simply a father beating his daughter, then I would concur with the deletion policy, however, the article should be a light biography of Adams, which I'm sure more information will come out about him soon; with a lengthy section of this Scandal. He serves the public in the American judicial system, that is cause number one for his inclusion in wikipedia, there will be great public interest in him
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:POLITICIAN)

Comment: Certainly seems to be in the spirit of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: BLP1E doesn't apply when the person has been subject to extensive, ongoing news reporting from multiple national sources. Keep based on  and his obvious notability. Special:Contributions/65.96.60.92|65.96.60.92
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:POLITICIAN)

Comment: Another word for "potential" is 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: Many commentators above fail to understand the nature of judges in this context.  He's simply another county official |known for a single event.  WP:POLITICIAN does not grant automatic notability to every local official, regardless of what US state (or corresponding entity) they're in; aside from the recent case that should remind us that |Wikipedia is not the newspaper, he seems to be no different from List of counties in Texas|253 or more truly average people across the state
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: per  and the fact that it is an attack page meant to degrade the subject, and uses an unofficial video that was posted for the sole purpose of defamation. Also, although the person may himself be notable, the content on the page is purely attack
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: My god, why am I not surprised that this nonsense was created as soon as the headlines hit Google News.  This is what  was put in place to prevent, articles on people who would otherwise be wholly unknown, save some some sensational "look what the drive-by media is talking about for today, to be forgotten by next week".  He is in hte news for the alleged child abuse video and nothing more.  Also, Adams does not qualify for  either, as Adams is a judge in the Aransas County Court.  County judges are not "state-wide", which is the politician notability threshold.  No redirect warranted, as the "Beating... article needs to be shit-canned as well
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:POLITICIAN)

Comment: per , , etc. I'm undecided on whether an article on the incident is justifiable - it has received a lot of media attention, but may not sustain lasting notability. But as article on the person is definitely not: this is directly the sort of article that BLP1E is meant to prevent. I'm surprised it wasn't speedied on sight
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:ATTACK)

Comment: barring any major developments.  is the main one here; being targeted by Anonymous (group)|the good hand of Anonymous isn't in and of itself notable. If this reaches nation- or worldwide media attention and receives an appropriate reaction aside from whatever V for Vendetta|V can do vs. Norsefrost, then it will get an article and my rationale will change to '''Keep''' - but ''not before that point''. —''Jeremy'' v^_^v Components
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: BLP1E, local official, |news report disguised as an article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: per nom. Many statements are uncited and are either SYNTH or original research. This is an encyclopedia. It is a clear BLP1E case and a negative biography contrary  to 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: per . He is in newspapers worldwide in a burst of coverage of an alleged 2004 videotape of the whipping of a child with a belt by a cursing man. Before the release of the tape, he was just a county judge of little note. That level of judicial office has not been taken as inherently notable in previous AFDs I have seen. Google News archive shows only passing references and very routine and run of the mill coverage of his judicial actions,  not sufficient to satisfy . If the alleged beating somehow gains significance, as the subject of plays, movies, books, or it it motivates the passage of some new law, or has other societal effects beyond one news cycle, or it becomes a notable crime, then an article could be created. Stating that he video and the article are an attack is ironic, in light of what the video shows. News articles now say that Adams has http://www.chron.com/news/local_news/article/Police-investigate-judge-over-online-video-2248539.php acknowledged the authenticity of the video, while saying it wasn't as bad as it looks
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:BIO)

Comment: in the event that something somewhat more ''encyclopedic'' and notable comes out of this event that, in my opinion, presently fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Keeping an article in wait for "longer lasting effects" that haven't happened yet is  defined
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: or '''Merge''' into the event (currently titled Beating of Hillary Adams, also subject to AfD). While the subject doesn't make the bar as a ''county'' rather than ''state'' judge, they are still an elected official and have an amount of presumed notability already — in any case they are a |public figure so the BLP claims carry a lot less weight. Being a judge and having the police chief http://www.freep.com/article/20111104/NEWS01/111104024/Texas-judge-taped-beating-his-daughter-won-t-face-charges-police-say state that they "believe that there was a criminal offense involved" is, in itself, notable, particularly when you're a judge working on child abuse cases and the claim against you is child abuse. Then being quoted saying "It looks worse than it is" guarantees you additional notoriety, as evidenced by deep and diverse international news coverage extending far beyond the usual short news cycle. I think we'll be analysing and referring to this as a case study for the foreseeable future — indeed we http://blogs.ajc.com/momania/2011/11/04/when-does-spanking-become-beating-does-the-viral-video-change-your-mind/ already http://www.huffingtonpost.com/missy-chase-lapine/child-abuse-youtube_b_1075869.html are
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:WELLKNOWN)

Comment: Per , elected state judges are automatically notable. I believe the article, as it stands, is nothing but an attack piece, but it should be kept and cleaned up
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:POLITICIAN)

Comment: per my above comments: as non-notable low-level judge, and per  and .  We need more sustained coverage and indicators of continuing significance than this to justify an article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: None of the "Keep!" arguments above changed my initial assumption that this is a low-level Family Court judge and this is a case of  and . Both the the letter and spirit of  makes clear that a judge of such stature does not warrant an article, elected or not
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:BLP1E||WP:POLITICIAN)

Comment: Why does ''on-going'' or ''|persistent'' coverage keep coming up?  Give an example of this  ''on-going'' or ''persistent'' coverage applicable to the  criteria
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PERSISTENCE||WP:NEWSEVENT)

Comment: I believe the article as it currently is should be deleted, as it is a clear  incident that this article is being used for. However, I also think that an article on the man should exist if sources on him can be found from before this event, as he passes  because of his position. Since the special notability guidelines just give a presumption of notability, which I would normally think is enough but this situation is a bit more chaotic, an article on him should only be made if reliable sources that discuss him in detail can be found which are not from this event
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:POLITICIAN)

Comment: this article and the fork per . Fails  since he is a not a statewide judge, only county. Per , this should be speedied
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:POLITICIAN||WP:ATTACK)

Comment: WP:BLP1E would suggest moving the article to a name about the event.  But this is merely newsworthy, not notable, and Wikipedia is not news; .  There's no basis for notability based on his judicial position; although this judgeship is a state office, it's a county judgeship, not a state-wide elected position
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Clear case of  and . There doesn't seem to be any lasting notability beyond this news cycle
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: per ) or '''Merge''' into Beating of Hillary Adams
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:POLITICIAN)

Comment: this and the fork at Beating of Hillary Adams. The subject is not notable, and inadequate time has passed to provide any indication that this |event is of lasting significance
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENT)

Comment: Why does  keep coming up?  The plain text the guideline of it only includes state-wide and national judicial officers. Explain what Adams meets in the  criteria
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:POLITICIAN)

Comment: Per , elected state judges are automatically notable. -- Special:Contributions/74.0.139.105|74.0.139.105
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:POLITICIAN)

Comment: per , , he is an elected official of Texas, and because he has become a top news story across the nation, appearing in many reputable sources (http://news.yahoo.com/dad-caught-video-beating-daughter-needs-help-070228201.html example). For those claiming he is not significant for anything other than the beating (and therefor fails the BLP1E test), see Death of Wang Yue regarding the death of a child of no (relative) import other than her death
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:POLITICIAN||WP:GNG)

Comment: He passes  and is notable for on-going, non-trivial, nation-wide media coverage. For those who say that  does not apply to county judges, how do you justify New York County judges who are notable under this guideline. The standard needs to be applied uniformly, thus making this politician/judge notable. Special:Contributions/134.241.58.253|134.241.58.253
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:POLITICIAN||WP:POLITICIAN)

Comment: As carefully explained above, the subject does ''not'' hold an office that makes the subject inherently notable: County official + one viral video + excited response does not satisfy  but does fail . The subject does not hold a statewide or provincewide political or judicial office, so  does not apply
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:BLP1E||WP:POLITICIAN)