Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Brook

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was redirect‎ to North Carolina Court of Appeals#Former judges as a viable ATD since no further input is forthcoming Star Mississippi 03:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Brook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

the subject fails GNG, notability under NPOL is questionable but I could not find any RS with SIGCOV of the subject. The page was mainly a copy-paste job from official press releases and still reads like a promo piece. The only sources are a campaign website, a press release and ballotopedia. hroest 19:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. hroest 19:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or redirect to North Carolina Court of Appeals#Former judges Subject should meet WP:NPOL for holding a statewide office that is normally elected. I understand that here Brook was appointed and not elected, but the position is a statewide elected position and I think the NPOL presumption applies to appointees if they're appointed to a normally elected office. However, if there is not enough sourcing to write a good WP:BLP due to the short tenure in the position then we should redirect it to the office he held. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:01, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 23 November 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.