John M. Facciola: .  "not inherently notable" and per consensus at WP:Articles for deletion/Margaret J. Schneider ; very little sourcing for a biographical article Snickers2686 ( talk ) 21:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions .  Snickers2686 ( talk ) 21:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: New York and Washington, D.C. .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 23:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: Found plenty of passing mentions about this person, but nothing substantial.  Subject does not pass WP:JUDGE .  User:Let'srun 01:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nandor Vadas .  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] weak Keep - Based on the info, John M. Facciola appears to meet the notability criteria for Judges and legal professionals on Wikipedia WP:LEGALBIO.  His long-term service as a United States magistrate judge, his prior roles as an Assistant District Attorney and in private practice, and his academic contributions as an adjunct professor and legal scholar all contribute to his notability.  Additionally, his written opinions on electronic discovery and related legal matters, along with his recognition by the legal community, further establish his notability within his field.  The references cited suggest that there is coverage of Facciola's judicial and academic work in reliable sources, supporting the case for possibly entertaining the Idea of retaining his article on Wikipedia.  PD Slessor ( talk ) 10:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : BLP, fails GNG and NBIO.  Sources in the article and BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth .  BLPs require strong sourcing.  Keep vote provided no sources to eval.  // Timothy :: talk 12:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Timothy, GNG not met with sources here.  BLP requires high levels of sourcing and this doesn't meet it.  Daniel ( talk ) 04:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep - there is some evidence that he has been "recognized as an expert in a specialized area of law," and might meet my own longstanding standards for lawyers .  Bearian ( talk ) 20:01, 20 December 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete