Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate A. Toomey

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kate A. Toomey

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

Does not appear to meet any of the BLP notability criteria even after a Google search. The article does not contain any claims to importance or significance, and I do not recall state Appeal Court judges as being inherently notable. The sources provided are routine mentions and are not in-depth media coverage. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep high ranking state judges are considered inherently notable. This is 100% clear state supreme court, but also extends to state appeals court.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Johnpacklambert, please provide a link to where that is cxlearly stated, becaus I searched for one and couldn't find such a special exception, and otherwise your vote is invalid. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I also concur this particular position is not convincing for her own notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:POLITICIAN. position is notable by definition. Nom and SwisterTwister are mistaken.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The material is cited to primary sources www.utcourts.gov & utah.gov; I cannot find any secondary coverage except a local news brief about the appointment. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it clearly fails GNG and WP:NPOL. The Utah Court of Appeals is an intermediate court in a state and this position doesn't guarantee notability. More importantly the coverage in reliable and independent sources is sparse. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to / Merge with Utah Court of Appeals, which would benefit from the addition of information, as it's currently tagged as not citing any sources. The sources are not sufficient to establish Ms Toomey's individual notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per E.M.Gregory with sources including in-depth here and two mentions here and in-depth here and a mention here and in-depth here and several paragraphs here and a mention here and in-depth here plus there are many more of such sources and more here -- in sum she's an important player in Utah politics. Passes the WP:GNG--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:07, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These are not in-depth sources: links #1 and #3 are about the judge's cases. The cases may be notable, but that's WP:ROUTINE coverage associated with a judge's job. As in: "Judge Kate Toomey's decision goes against two Utah-based cab companies' assertion in a lawsuit that HB104 prohibits Salt Lake City International Airport from imposing age and mileage requirements on ground transportation vehicles." This is about the case, not the subject of the article under discussion. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteI don't think that a State Appeals Court judge is automatically excluded or included by WP:NPOL and notability should be determined by secondary coverage. I don't believe there is sufficient secondary coverage. The sources cited above are mostly reporting on judicial cases that mention her rulings. There is little coverage of her as a judge, beyond one press-release type article on her appointment. MB 19:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is a high-level politician as being part of the Utah Court of Appeals. I added additional information to the article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find it interesting that those who do not understand the court system in the United States would vote to delete the page. The Utah Court of Appeals is the second highest court in Utah. The judges appointed to the court are key persons in the legal community. In addition, most appellate courts in other states have pages for their judges. These judges influence the law and issue opinions every year that are key. For these reasons, the page should not be deleted.Jurisdicta (talk) 05:07, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I looked at California Court of Appeals, and very few judges have articles, perhaps 10%: Start of the list. That's why perhaps a redirect may be appropriate. The court is notable, while the individual judge may not be. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:27, 23 August 2016 (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.