Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Bloch Rodwin

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 delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:04, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Bloch Rodwin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Article about a family court judge, not reliably sourced as clearing our notability standards for judges. Family court (which is the level of jurisprudence that covers things like divorce and adoption and child custody issues) is not an inherently notable level of judgeship that guarantees every family court judge a Wikipedia article just because she exists, but this article is not demonstrating any evidence that she's much more notable than the norm for her level of significance -- the notability claims here are that she won not-inherently-notable local awards and that she appeared on national television talk shows to talk about cases. But every award that exists is not always an automatic free pass over WP:ANYBIO -- and she has to be the subject being spoken about by other people, not the person doing the speaking about other things, for television content to be a notability claim. And the vast majority of the content here is referenced to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, and the little bit that is actually real third-party third-person journalism about her is purely local news coverage of the type that any local figure can simply and routinely expect to receive. Nothing here passes the ten year test for enduring significance, and none of it is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have much better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:21, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - while I could quibble with some of the claims in the article, she does seem to pass WP:GNG. As far as my standards go, she would not normally pass the bar, pardon the pun. However, the media has treated her as an expert in her area of law, and she presided over a major case. So those are factors in her favor. I know that winning an award from a regional or specialty bar association isn't that big of a deal. I think this article should be kept, but it needs some editing down. Bearian (talk) 15:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. FWIW, I don't know her. Bearian (talk) 15:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete another in our series of over coverage of local lever figures in the Buffalo Metro Area.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:23, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete . Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 12:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per norm. Lapablo (talk) 09:40, 25 September 2019 (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.