Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey W. Parker: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:01, 14 May 2005

Jeffrey W. Parker

Non-notable family-heavy bio of User:Tparker393's pa; principal author is User:Rad Racer, claimed by User:205.217.105.2 (accused sock of the blocked User:Iasson) as a sock of himself; other two edits are by User:159.169.57.3 and subject's son User:Tparker393, who claims to have authored one of 159's contribs (and is at this moment blocked as a vandal, for trying to hide info on a troubled VfD page about their relationship. Creation may be means of establishing background for sock that is inconsistent with sock-master's background, or just part of giving the sock a month's history (with 16 edit including VfD). (Or maybe someone is waiting for this to become another battleground.) This nomination is also a Del vote. --Jerzy~t 00:00, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Change my vote to neutral. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:55, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:29, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. (Warning: humor attempt follows) Color me amused. Who would have thought that a Virginia Circuit Court judge was less notable than a breadbox? And to be completely fair, the article has undergone a much more than 100% improvement since Starblind's vote.)--Unfocused 21:39, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, possible hoax. Megan1967 02:25, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I have been asked to review the article and my vote - sorry although the article does look much better the question of notability still remains. Megan1967 06:22, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and remember to use the SMITE key. -- B.d.mills (Talk) 02:50, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Virginia Circuit Court judge nominated VfD ~~unsigned~~. Red herring of the day: His eldest son is a Wikipedian who has edited this article once while logged in. Important fact of the day: a brief Google of "Jeffrey W. Parker circuit court Fauquier County Virginia" would get you to the Fauquier County, Virginia Circuit Court page that proves this isn't a hoax. Circuit Court judges are inherently notable.--Unfocused 03:42, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it was unsigned when I loaded the VfD page. Now I see a big paragraph. Sorry. --Unfocused 03:44, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not your fault. It's been blanked twice by 66.59.104.22 (talk · contribs), a vandal who claims to be merely a messenger for User:205.217.105.2 at Admins' incident board. You caught it too soon after one of them, for one of our faithful colleagues to have reverted the vandalism. --Jerzy~t 08:05 &, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
- Re your "Red herring" criterion, no, not just one. The Wp'ian
  - is known to have edited it once,
  - implicitly claims ~~two~~ one more edits, and
  - his misbehavior suggests he is another sock-puppet of the admitted puppet-master (205, mentioned above) of the contributor of all the other edits. (Or perhaps "Parker" is the real puppet-master, of whom 205 is just one more puppet.)
  There can be no presumption of the content being contributed in good faith or at arms' length.
--Jerzy~t 08:05 & 08:10, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- - - Not a sock puppet. See below. Leave the guy alone; he didn't know blanking the page was against policy. Wikipedia:Don't bite the newcomers. 205.217.105.2 12:46, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - not sure that I would call state circuit court judges inherently notable. Depends on the setup of the state government - in my home state of Florida, the circuit courts are near the bottom of the pile. -- BDAbramson ^thimk 03:50, 2005 May 10 (UTC)
Keep Semi-important public official and community leader. Maybe not as important as Alan de Jardin... ---Isaac R 03:57, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
County circuit court judges are NOT inherently notable. Absent any real sign of notability, delete. --Calton | Talk 07:07, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I, too, was asked to reconsider (in my opinion, spam, but whatever), and upon review am reaffirming my original vote. What was added was not evidence of noteworthiness, but legal trivia (lawcruft?) and it merely strengthens my view that this article is textbook case of vanity. --Calton | Talk 01:16, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NN. Radiant_* 08:52, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
- I was asked to reconsider since the article was expanded, but I'm afraid the expansion doesn't make him any more notable, so my vote stands. R adiant _* 19:25, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, notable. See [1]. A Circuit Court, in Virginia, has appellate jurisdiction over General District Court and Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, and also hears all felony cases for the county. It is also a court of record that sets legal precedents. A circuit court judge is probably at least as notable as a state delegate or senator. Jeff Parker is in fact the ONLY circuit court judge who sits in Fauquier County, Virginia. I cast this vote, by the way, with knowledge that votes from non-logged-in accounts may carry less weight than those logged-in accounts. As for sockpuppetry allegations related to Tparker393, I refer readers to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Formal_statement_of_User:205.217.105.2_.2F_User:24.54.208.177. Jerzy drew some reasonable conclusions about sockpuppetry, given the evidence, but he just didn't happen to be correct, and at this point I would expect him to withdraw the allegations by striking them through above. 205.217.105.2 12:38, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for some very useful comments. But you really should consider getting an account. Its not a lot of hassle, and would give your contributions more weight. ---Isaac R 16:05, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - In the long run it would help, but in the short run, it would probably lead to accusations of sockpuppetry due to newness of the account/small number of edits. 205.217.105.2 17:01, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The position of Circuit Court Judge is notable and this article does not deserve to be deleted. Parker is a former law partner of current U.S. Senator George Allen. His service to community, commitment to justice and leadership is worthy of an article about him here. Tparker393 16:50, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears that Parker is a state trial court judge, a position which is at a relatively low level in the judicial hierarchy, as judges go in the U.S. A state trial court judge could be notable but there is no guarantee of that. For example, Wikipedia has an article about Lance Ito, but I don't think it has, or needs, articles about all the judges whose chambers are in the same courthouse as Ito's. Also, being a former law partner of a senator and presidential candidate is not inherently notable; Wikipedia has articles about Webster Hubbell and Vince Foster but not Hillary Rodham Clinton's other former law partners. I would need more evidence before I could support this article. --Metropolitan90 02:40, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Comment This message is for Jerzy and those who are connected with him in this ignoble effort to delete an article that doesn't warrant such action. Yeah, you're right- he is my father, and I'm proud of him. He has accomplished more than someone who just sits behind his computer all day trying to incite arguments. Also, I'm not a sockpuppet, I didn't even know what that was until this morning. I often forget to login before making comments but I have nothing to hide and could care less about 'stuffing a ballot box'. Sorry if i caused any confusion. But your reckless bullying tactics that have spurred this article's vfd are nothing short of despicable. You are a terrible excuse for an admin and hopefully others will take notice- or perhaps they will be notified. Tparker393 16:07, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'm not sufficiently familiar with the structure of the nooks and crannies of the U.S. court system to evaluate whether a Virginia Circuit Court judge is sufficiently notable for an encyclopedia. I would remind Tparker393 that levelling threats and making personal attacks on other editors is neither persuasive, helpful, polite, nor permitted by Wikipedia policy. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 17:43, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I appreciate that, but it's not my intention to 'level threats or make personal attacks' on anyone. I simply stated how i feel, which is what everyone has done. Don't blame me for being assertive when it comes to defending what I think is important. Tparker393 19:48, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not every judge is notable--there are tens of thousands of people who have served as a judge in the U.S. in one capacity or another. Has this judge worked on even one high-profile, notable case? No, there is no evidence given of that. True, he was college roommates with someone who now holds high public office, but the only way that would ever be notable would be if the judge owes his position to his friendship with the senator, which no one has so far suggested. The person who created the article has already admitted that the only reason he created it is because it's about his dad and he's proud of him. That's a nice sentiment, but it doesn't create notability. Furthermore, Tparker393's outbursts and violations of Wikipedia civility standards further damage his case through emotionalism, when he would be better off assembling and presenting independently verifiable evidence of his father's notability, if any indeed exists. --Stan 4.246.120.153 20:18, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Just to give an idea of proportion: The ratio of circuit court judges to citizens in Fairfax County, Virginia is one judge for 55,000 people. A similar ratio is found in Prince William County, Virginia – 5 circuit court judges for 280,000 people, or 1:56,000. Extrapolating that to a nationwide population of 300 million, that would be about 5,400 judges of comparable notability. So, Stan is right that there have been tens of thousands of judges of comparable notability in the entire history of the U.S. However, it is worth considering that the U.S. population was only 150 million as late as 1950, and was only 76 million on 1900. See [2]. So, it may not be in the high tens of thousands. And, I am not sure that anyone is contemplating writing an article about all of them. I think this is a borderline case as the article stands now. Perhaps more facts to establish notability will emerge. 24.54.208.177 01:32, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - LOL. Yes, by all means, let's get a grip on a sense of proportion here. According to the Fairfox County website [3], there is one dog catcher per every 41,304 county residents (950,000 divided by 23). Who wants to volunteer to write a Wikipedia article for each one of those dog catchers, mmmm? That's 23 "animal control officers" for us to research. Let's track down all of their sons and invite them to write articles about their dads or moms. Bear in mind that the animal control field requires years of study and preparation, that the officers' kids are very proud of them, and that at least some of those dog catchers must have once been friends with somebody more important than they are, perhaps even a U.S. Senator. --Stan 4.246.120.153 03:33, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment The dog catcher analogy is poor, unless your dogcatcher authors legal opinions that are used as binding precedent to clarify and define laws and policies that you live under. My dogcatcher does no such thing, so he's not nearly as notable. How many similar articles might be written is conjecture, and conjecture is poor criteria for deciding the merit of any individual article. Compare and contrast this to all the minor candidates from obscure political parties for Congress/Parliament and Executive positions that have articles here: it seems that to run for a Legislative or Executive office and fail is more notable than to actually hold office in the Judiciary. If before I saw this VfD, I were seeking an unbiased view of the Circuit Court judges in my jurisdiction, I would have checked the official government page first, but Wikipedia for a second, NPOV opinion. --Unfocused 03:39, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Au contraire, the dog-catcher analogy is entirely apt. If a judge is notable because he serves 55,000 people within a certain county, then a dog catcher who serves a population of 43,000 within that same county is within the same range of notability. Furthermore, judges are liable to have their decisions overturned by higher authority. Almost always, the dog catcher has the final word. Whether we are judging judges or judging dog catchers, we must ascertain whether the individual is notable within his field. Harpo Marx, for instance, will always be more notable for playing a dog catcher in Duck Soup than Jeffrey W. Parker has ever been notable as a judge in real life. One must come to understand the essentials of notability. The Judge Parker who was the 1904 Democratic nominee for President is notable because, like Harpo playing a dog catcher, he was playing a notable role on a wide stage. According to what has been presented so far, the Judge Parker under discussion here (Jeffrey W. of Fairfax Co. VA) is very important in one small room in Virginia, but has done nothing that makes him especially notable among the 10,000+ people in US history who have been judges. Judge Parker needs to do something big, and he has only a few hours left to do it in. A high-profile case. The solution to the world's biggest crossword puzzle. A cameo on the Howard Stern Show. Something. And fast.
Comment Hey Stan, no one asked you to research anything or write an article about it. Are you trying to mock the situation? I didn't write this article genius, did you see that or are you too busy trying to sound intelligent? Having an opinion is one thing but don't be a jerk- I'm certain that judges on any level go through more schooling and make more critical decisions than dog catchers. Geez, what an idiotic suggestion. 'Friends' with a U.S. Senator? Try former business partners. Tparker393 15:43, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, vanity, no evidence of independent notability beyond his office. I would change this vote if evidence of individual notability is provided. I agree with Stan, above, on all points. Barno 20:40, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Since I voted, descriptions of two court cases heard by this judge have been added to the article. Both cases were similar to ones heard by almost every state judge at almost every level. I saw no indication that their consequences or any surrounding controversy rose to nationwide or industry-wide significance. No change of vote, but thanks to that editor for trying to establish fact-based notability instead of repeating stuff about being proud of Dad or insulting VfD voters. Barno 18:33, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even all of the US federal Circuit Court judges are not notable, unless they become involved in high profile cases. We certainly don't need articles on every state judge, unless, he, too, is involved in notable cases. RickK 21:10, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
- Ok, that's just empirically wrong. All U.S. Circuit Court judges are inherently notable (except maybe those who have only served for a year or two). Takes a lot to get to that position - you have to be appointed by the President and approved by the Senate (and there's a lot more wrangling over these appointments than there is over regular District Court judges); and all U.S. Circuit Court judges are involved in at least some notable cases. -- BDAbramson ^thimk 01:49, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
Delete as above - not all judges are encyclopedic. CDC (talk) 21:15, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. By the way, anyone know if the article with the title Tparker393/Jeffrey W. Parker was intended to be in user namespace? --Tabor 22:11, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, a copy of it is being put there pending the results of the VFD. 24.54.208.177 01:29, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Mcfly85 22:44, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Quale 06:16, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn.--Prem 03:17, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

@@ Line 36: / Line 36: @@
 **'''Comment'''. Just to give an idea of proportion: The ratio of circuit court judges to citizens in [[Fairfax County, Virginia]] is one judge for 55,000 people. A similar ratio is found in [[Prince William County, Virginia]] &ndash; 5 circuit court judges for 280,000 people, or 1:56,000. Extrapolating that to a nationwide population of 300 million, that would be about 5,400 judges of comparable notability. So, Stan is right that there have been tens of thousands of judges of comparable notability in the entire history of the U.S. However, it is worth considering that the U.S. population was only 150 million as late as [[1950]], and was only 76 million on [[1900]]. See [http://www.census.gov/population/censusdata/urpop0090.txt]. So, it may not be in the high tens of thousands. And, I am not sure that anyone is contemplating writing an article about all of them. I think this is a borderline case as the article stands now. Perhaps more facts to establish notability will emerge. [[User:24.54.208.177|24.54.208.177]] 01:32, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 ***LOL.  Yes, by all means, let's get a grip on a sense of proportion here.  According to the Fairfox County website [http://www.co.fairfax.va.us/police/animal.htm], there is one '''dog catcher''' per every 41,304 county residents (950,000 divided by 23).  Who wants to volunteer to write a Wikipedia article for each one of those dog catchers, mmmm?  That's 23 "animal control officers" for us to research.  Let's track down all of their sons and invite them to write articles about their dads or moms.  Bear in mind that the animal control field requires years of study and preparation, that the officers' kids are very proud of them, and that at least some of those dog catchers must have once been friends with somebody more important than they are, perhaps even a U.S. Senator.  --Stan [[User:4.246.120.153|4.246.120.153]] 03:33, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 ****'''Comment'''  The dog catcher analogy is poor, unless your dogcatcher authors legal opinions that are used as binding precedent to clarify and define laws and policies that you live under.  My dogcatcher does no such thing, so he's not nearly as notable.  How many similar articles might be written is conjecture, and conjecture is poor criteria for deciding the merit of any individual article.  Compare and contrast this to all the minor candidates from obscure political parties for Congress/Parliament and Executive positions that have articles here: it seems that to run for a Legislative or Executive office and fail is more notable than to actually hold office in the Judiciary.  If before I saw this VfD, I were seeking an unbiased view of the Circuit Court judges in my jurisdiction, I would have checked the official government page first, but Wikipedia for a second, NPOV opinion.  --[[User:Unfocused|Unfocused]] 03:39, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
+*****Au contraire, the dog-catcher analogy is entirely apt.  If a judge is notable because he serves 55,000 people within a certain county, then a dog catcher who serves a population of 43,000 within that same county is within the same range of notability.  Furthermore, judges are liable to have their decisions overturned by higher authority.  Almost always, the dog catcher has the final word.  Whether we are judging judges or judging dog catchers, we must ascertain whether the individual is notable ''within his field''.  [[Harpo Marx]], for instance, will always be more notable for ''playing'' a dog catcher in [[Duck Soup]] than Jeffrey W. Parker has ever been notable as a judge in real life.  One must come to ''understand'' the essentials of notability.  The Judge Parker who was the 1904 Democratic nominee for President is notable because, like Harpo playing a dog catcher, he was playing a notable role on a wide stage.  According to what has been presented so far, the Judge Parker under discussion here (Jeffrey W. of Fairfax Co. VA) is very important in one small room in Virginia, but has done nothing that makes him especially notable among the 10,000+ people in US history who have been judges.  Judge Parker needs to do something '''big''', and he has only a few hours left to do it in.  A high-profile case.  The solution to the world's biggest crossword puzzle.  A cameo on the Howard Stern Show.  Something.  And fast.
 *'''Comment''' Hey Stan, no one asked you to research anything or write an article about it. Are you trying to mock the situation? I didn't write this article genius, did you see that or are you too busy trying to sound intelligent? Having an opinion is one thing but don't be a jerk- I'm certain that judges on any level go through more schooling and make more critical decisions than dog catchers. Geez, what an idiotic suggestion. 'Friends' with a U.S. Senator? Try former business partners. [[User:Tparker393|Tparker393]] 15:43, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 *'''Weak delete''', vanity, no evidence of independent notability beyond his office.  I would change this vote if evidence of individual notability is provided.  I agree with Stan, above, on all points.  [[User:Barno|Barno]] 20:40, 10 May 2005 (UTC)