Deletion of Leslie A. Lewis

Comment: I peeked at the recent non-protected version and I believe it is indeed a BLP violation, specifically #Criticism. I also know that semi-protection and protection are ways to prevent BLP violations. I suggest that the protection be lifted so the community will not be suspicious that the nominator is abusing admin powers (false or otherwise). Should protection be necessary, an uninvolved admin should do so
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: I would tend to believe that, while Circuit Court judges (who are Federally appointed) are probably inherently notable, District Court judges (who are generally local elected officials) are not.  The question, then, is whether Lewis's bad press and subsequent retention election is enough to confer notability on her.  This is a really close call, but I tend to believe that a hostile CNN talk show and some otherwise local furor does not clear the notability bar.  Delete as nn.  (Note that I do ''not'' see  violations here: if a person becomes infamous for a single incident, that does not bar Wikipedia from writing an article mostly about that incident - see, e.g., Mark David Chapman
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: The same is true of Amelia Earhart, and we're not AfD'ing her.  Non sequitur.  See #What is not a coatrack
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK)

Comment: clear . Far below  standards, and the attention briefly attained by a viral video clip isn't really notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK||WP:BIO)

Comment: The view from England: "US judge gets voted off" is hardly notable, worldwide. I've not heard of  before, but having read it, this fits perfectly (yes, I know it's only an essay). This might make a para in a putative article Effects of YouTube videos, else write a proper bio of the woman and see if that's notable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK)

Comment: per . No version of the article contains any information about her life, or any sources for same, except for this one affair
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: The behavior of any editors involved notwithstanding, the article cites reliable sources, and those sources indicate non-trivial coverage. There is likely to be further information availible to fill-out the article in other sources, and thus this is in need of keeping and expanding per , and not deletion issue at this point
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard (WP:HEY)

Comment: Um, with all due respect, her widely publicized grassroots-organized ouster is what she is notable for, if being an elected official somehow wasn't enough.  Nominator hasn't even looked at the massive amount of supporting media coverage, otherwise he would have known that the contents of the since-removed YouTube video are well documented by |reliable sources and he would not have removed it claiming they were somehow unverifiable.  If NPOV is still a concern, deletion is not the answer.  Incidentally, I can't help but notice that more than half of the nominator's last 50 edits are to undo or delete ''my'' contributions... Travis, what did I do to piss you off
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: The article is exclusively concerned with a single incident in this person's life to the exclusion of every other part of her life, and thus improperly gives |undue weight to that incident. It is |established policy that Wikipedia does not create "biographies" about people who are temporarily in the news because of a single incident
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE||WP:BLP)