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. It is well established that SNGs are subordinate to the GNG. An article that meets an SNG (which this one might, though GPL93's point is a salient one) might be given a little bit of extra leeway if its compliance with GNG is a close call, the subject of this article is a living person, and COATRACK concerns are live ones. Additionally, the keep !votes here rely almost entirely on the SNGs, with nothing to establish that it's even close to compliance with the GNG. Steve Smith (talk) 09:51, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article as it stands is something of a COATRACK and fails NPOV, especially since the "Marriage and Divorce" section is sourced entirely from primary sources. (There was previously a negative section entitled "Judicial tenure" that was sourced entirely from a Google search.) While enough of the negative stuff has been removed to "save" this from G10, a Google search shows no evidence of passing the GNG; the results are mainly primary sources, and after half a page it starts showing results from a different Kevin Ross, who's a judge from Delaware. Given this and the present BLP concerns I don't think this topic is worthy of a Wikipedia article at this time. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is all verifiable and true. This is all public. His divorce opinion is public. This article cannot be deleted and is well sourced. It is not overwhelmingly negative. This is what the opinion said. It's totally neutral. It is utterly ridiculous for you to attempt to delete a page of a public official. Are you working with him or are you his friend?
Totally false. The marriage and divorce section was sourced entirely from a Minnesota Court of Appeals opinion and is properly cited. This past comment did not even bother to go look at the opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiposteryolo (talk • contribs) 17:39, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiposteryolo, there's no need to look at the opinion for this purpose as it is a primary source. A Wikipedia article, especially a biography on a living person, should not be sourced entirely or even mostly on primary sources, as they are easily interpreted according to the editor's viewpoint, contrary to Wikipedia policy. For that very reason, the court opinion does notestablish notability and allow this article to be kept. Also, please do not put further comments on the top of the page, as that confuses people and interrupts the flow of the conversation. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiposteryolo you have asserted in your recent edits (now reverted) that the judge's appeal of the trial court decree to the court of appeals "is a serious conflict of interest". You are wrong. First, that is your uninformed opinion and prohibited original research. Second, even judges are allowed to be parties in court actions; even judges are entitled to equal treatment under the law, which includes the rights of appeal. Third, the court which decided the case comprised retired judges and not his colleagues on the court. And fourth, they found against him.
All of which raises the question: What is your personal vendetta against the judges who are the subject of your articles and edits? Whatever they are, they don't belong on Wikipedia. Kablammo (talk) 16:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wow, I thought you were exaggerating with the Google search but holy cow it really was sourced with a Google search. Yep, definitely delete this. This is the kind of article that gives Wikipedia a bad name and the sooner it's gone, the better. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 13:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have cleaned up the remaining calumny, so the article should be judged as it now reads. The position he holds is on a court with statewide jurisdiction, but intermediate between the trial courts and the supreme court. The relevant policy is Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States_courts_and_judges/Notability#Judges_of_state_courts_of_appeals. I take no position. Kablammo (talk) 16:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC) I have now voted to delete, based on the discussion here. Kablammo (talk) 15:54, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reference Kablammo. Here's a bit that seems to line up with your link: Such judges are not inherently notable, but holding such a position is strong evidence of notability that can be established by other indicia of notability. In particular, state courts of appeals judges who serve for a comparatively long time, who preside over important cases, or whose opinions are often cited by higher courts in the state, by federal courts, or by state courts in other states, are highly likely to be notable. If there are other articles about this judge. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 17:58, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep State appellate court judges are considered notable-thank you-RFD (talk) 11:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. As 38.142.216.106 quoted above, such judges are not inherently notable (and the SNGs don't trump the GNG in any event), although it does leave some leeway for external evidence of notability. However, I don't see such evidence.
The Minnesota courts website is good in establishing verification of facts, but I don't believe it establishes notability in isolation, as several other judges in the system of lesser notability are included.
Ballotpedia is likewise not a source that establishes notability in isolation, although per the lack of consensus that surrounds its use on Wikipedia as a reliable source it perhaps can be used for verification.
Of the other two sources returned by a Google Search on my end, one is a Bloomberg piece that's just stats and the other is his divorce opinion, which is a primary source.
All in all, I feel that this is a borderline case; were this not a BLP I'd default to keep, but as Ross is a living person I feel that we should play it safe and default to delete. Thanks! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:34, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above. I don't think that the article was created in bad faith, but it seems like the only reason it was created was to include the BLP violation material that was removed previously. Beyond that, there's essentially no third party coverage that meets the requirements of WP:GNG, just generic information confirming that he exists and is a judge. It's not that state appellate judges are inherently non-notable, but there's no actual information about him other than basic directory information. We don't even really have a bio -- when was he born? 38.142.216.106 (talk) 14:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are no substantial sources that show notability. On this level of sourcing we would make every judge who holds an elective judgeship notable, and that is clearly not the intent of any of our guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:16, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily; trial court judges are elected locally (within their respective districts) and few would contend that they are automatically notable. Appellate court judges are elected statewide. But given the inability of WP to adequately maintain BLPs I have not voted "Keep" here. Kablammo (talk) 11:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:BARE. He's an appellate judge, but I don't see any of the usual indications of notability as a lawyer. Bearian (talk) 19:56, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. State appellate court judges are considered notable. @John M Wolfson: Your analysis of SNG not trumping GNG is incorrect. Here is a relevant Quote: this comment from Dodger67 about subject-specific notability guidelines: an SNG can never be used to exclude a subject that meets GNG. An SNG is by definition meant to (temporarily) lower the bar for subjects for which proving GNG compliance is difficult. In other words, SNGs do trump GNG because SNGS are about lowering the standard of inclusion in certain cases.4meter4 (talk) 22:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's only in cases where the subject already meets the GNG, which is debatable in this case. See also this comment from SpinningSpark, which says that The principle that SNGs do not trump GNG, that is, that they only indicate that the subject may be notable, is a principle that has wide consensus amongst editors (but still argued about enough not to have been explicitly written into guidelines). (emphasis mine). SNGs are not a "get-out-of-jail free card" for non-notable topics, and this borderline case is made more fraught by the fact that Ross is a living person. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:46, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draftDelete. I was actually leaning towards deletion under the notability guidelines of WP:USCJ, but I did find a newspaper article referencing a "Kevin G. Ross" who was an Iowa police officer in 1988 (which this Kevin G. Ross was) who was an alternate delegate to the 1988 Republican National Convention (the article is Stacy Swadish, "Two head for GOP convention", Iowa City Press-Citizen (August 13, 1988), p. 1B). The article goes into enough depth to indicate that Ross was a Democrat up until the Carter administration, thereafter became a Republican, and supported Pat Robertson in the primaries. If this is the same Kevin G. Ross, I would send to draft for further development, as it seems unlikely that this person was appointed to the court of appeals in a biographical vacuum. bd2412T 04:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If that's true, that would make me reconsider my position. However, the Political Graveyard here notes only the "Kevin Ross" in the 1988 Convention without any mention of a judicial (or any other) career; as other entries do include judgeships where appropriate, this might be absence of evidence being evidence of absence. I would support a move to draftspace iff the link between 1988 GOP Ross and this Ross is more firmly supported. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This Minnesota courts biography indicates that he's African-American, in agreement with the Political Graveyard entry of the 1988 Convention Ross, in addition to the other biographical details mentioned earlier. However, it doesn't say anything about the Convention itself (not that I'd expect it to); and neither do any of the sources provided by a Google Search. I now believe that it is the same person, in which case draftspace might be appropriate, but the evidence hitherto collected is somewhat circumstantial and SYNTHy to the point where I still feel keeping this in the mainspace is inappropriate. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:46, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26(spin me / revolutions) 15:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is the same Kevin G. Ross. He was an Iowa police officer before begging politicians for a seat on the bench in Hennepin County. He treats litigants like trash and is a prosecutor through and through. He also mentioned during that shooting of Philando Castille appeal that the officer had probable cause to shoot him because he smelled "marijuana" smoke. @JonMWOlfson what's your issue with verified facts? His marriage is public. All appellate records are public. It must be inserted into his article. He appealed the case to his own court to get favorable treatment. That's a matter of public concern and is therefore a product for wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiposteryolo (talk • contribs) 02:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, now I get the feeling that you're not here in the best faith, or if you are that you severely misunderstand several of Wikipedia's policies. It doesn't matter that these facts are independently true, or even verifiable, for Wikipedia's purposes. They need to be brought into a bigger picture in accordance with our policy on having a neutral point of view. In particular, Wikipedia is not for advocacy of a certain position or righting great wrongs. Even if there really isn't much nice to say about Ross, such fact(s) need to be thoroughly discussed in multiple reliable secondary sources, and what paltry sources exist don't cut it, especially as this is a biography of a living person. In the future, please make sure you really and thoroughly understand these rules and guidelines before making another article, especially one on a living person. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am leaning more towards deletion if the relatively thin case for notability here is going to be offset by the time drain of a low-level article drawing constant attacks and efforts to insert POV. bd2412T 04:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Under existing policy, Judge Ross is not automatically notable because of his position. And his marriage dissolution and (likely) service as an alternate to a national political convention are insufficient to confer notability. And we should not rely his biography on the court's website— those are self-authored. Kablammo (talk) 15:54, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appellate judge that meets the notability guidelines of WP. WP:NOTPAPER. We have reliable sources. Easy keep. WP:PRESERVE. Wm335td (talk) 22:10, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to badger, but might I ask what sources are those? – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ross is a state appellate judge, but for a specific district (Minnesota's 3rd congressional district), so his position is not actually statewide. I don't see notability conferred by the current sources. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Borderline case that has gone from NC to a lean towards Delete since last relist; one last relist to see whether Delete is confirmed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 03:05, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed my position above from "move to draft" to "delete". bd2412T 18:13, 11 November 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.