Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Fleischer (judge)

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 keep‎. Article and sourcing have also been improved since nomination. (non-admin closure) Cielquiparle (talk) 02:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Fleischer (judge) (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 of the article is not notable enough to warrant an article. WP:JUDGE notes that local elected officials are not presumed to be notable merely by their status. WP:SUSTAINED notes that notable topics must "have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time"; the sources in this article indicate that the subject of the article is only known for one event (chastising police in reference 6 by Yasmeen) and the rest of the sources are interviews or entries in databases like the state bar. WP:BLP1E applies here as Fleischer is only known for one event. Artwhitemaster (talk) 05:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Law. Artwhitemaster (talk) 05:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think the notable thing about this guy is that he's on the streaming sites and getting attention for his videos. ABC News recently did a piece on him[1]. He got other coverage in either June or October (website gives both) in the Atlanta Black Star[2]. There's very little secondary stuff out there about him that I could identify. Oblivy (talk) 06:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The videos are just live-streams and video clips from his court duties, which I would say are primary sources. All the news articles about him are from selected incidents of his "best moments" calling out dubious legal evidence, like the incident that generated all that media coverage in October, which feels like a WP:BLP1E moment where he has his 15 minutes of fame, generates some secondary sources, and remains low-profile. Artwhitemaster (talk) 09:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  To clarify, I'm not saying he's wikipedia notable just that he has some notability and it's not merely being a humble judge as the nomination suggests. The sourcing is an issue. Oblivy (talk) 09:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That Atlanta Black Star article links to an earlier article about another case of Fleischer's on a similar theme, so it would seem to me that the "single event" clause of BLP1E isn't met. Note that the one that was linked by Oblivy isn't referenced in the wiki page, whereas the one I just linked is. Xxc3nsoredxx (talk) 01:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He's a pretty popular judge on YouTube where several channels cover his court proceedings. He also has his own channel where he live streams his court room. In this interview with him he talks about, among other things, his part in bail reform and other judicial reform in Texas (it's linked as a reference already, but only for bits of his personal life). Towards the end, the interview also touches on that it's pretty unique for a judge to live stream court. He responds that he does it for transparency and educational purposes to let people see how the system works and what the consequences could be, and that teachers have reached out to him regarding using his streams in classrooms. Xxc3nsoredxx (talk) 06:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC) — Xxc3nsoredxx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  I feel like the fact that several channels simply clip and repost his courtroom stream doesn't really do much in terms of notability, since I would consider them primary sources that aren't about him. Should every judge on Court Cam have their own wiki page? Him having his own YouTube channel also doesn't matter since the source is not independent from the subject - not even mentioning that it's not a source for the article. As for the interview, IMO his opinions on judicial reform have no bearing on whether or not to delete the article. Artwhitemaster (talk) 09:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I would argue that at least some channels go beyond simply reposting. They provide an avenue for discussing specific cases/outcomes, (light) editorializing by giving a brief summary of what they think are specific points of interest, as well as commentary on how they think he's growing as a professional and where he might be falling short. I would consider it a point towards notability that others take the time to analyze his character. Xxc3nsoredxx (talk) 02:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I thought he met the general notability criteria rather than the criteria under judge. But I agree that it's not amazing sourcing. ^SMason_Garrison 13:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify - I've had a look at the sourcing of the article and think I have a pretty good idea of what is out there and I don't think it meets standards for notability. There are some YouTube videos, the ABC video, and some niche and local media talking about him. Meanwhile his article makes him look like boring local judge but but at the moment his fame seems to be as a streamer. He may easily pass our standards soon enough, if he gets some quality news stories about him, in which case it could go back to article space in preferably through new page creation. Oblivy (talk) 04:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He is an extremely popular judge, there have been many stories on him in media. He is covered in many channels on Youtube and other social media. His content is widely shared and followed. The article needs to be improved, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. Wordsworth1990 (talk) 14:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC) — Wordsworth1990 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: Being popular on YouTube does not contribute to notability, nor does being mentioned in other YouTube videos. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I just overhauled the page, and I think as it stands currently, it meets notability. There are plenty of secondary sources (ABC, Houston Chronicle, Bolt, Houston Public Media), and I think they all contribute to notability. Plus, I removed some of the not-great sources and replaced them with more reputable ones. I also think his online virality should be 1 of many factors that add to his notability. Some people did not like the ABC News video as a source, but plenty of Wikipedia pages use videos as sources. I think a national news organization interviewing the person is a viable source. Plus, what was used was limited to what the ABC News host said. I think before the updates, the page should have stayed, but after the update, I still think it should stay and address concerns of people who voted to delete. Bpuddin (talk) 04:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The arguments of the keeper !voters are not holding waters yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't understand how the Keep votes are not "holding water." Plenty of secondary sources have been added to the page, and a profile of Fleischer from the Houston Chronicle published recently (and added to the page) shows notability. This is in addition to the ABC News interview and other sources highlighting Fleischer. If anything, the Delete people's arguments are not holding water when they say he only has one notable thing about him (his viral videos). If you look at the updated page, there is more than just his viral videos; there are his elections and the fact that he helped push for bail reform in Houston, which was part of an attack during his following election. At this point, the extension of the comment period is unnecessary since there was previously a consensus to keep his page. The people who vote to delete the page should have better arguments to show why the current page should be deleted.Bpuddin (talk) 18:31, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has notability beyond simply being a judge as demonstrated in the article. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 23:38, 26 December 2024 (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.