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. The consensus was in favor of keep; much of the debate was over the application of the subject specific guideline in WP:POLITICIAN to a non-elected provincial (Manitoba) judge. Arguments can be made several ways concerning the interpretation of the phrase "Politicians who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature and judges"; one can argue that it deosn't apply to judges who are not politicians, and one can argue that "and" means politicians and provincewide judges and politicians; potentially, one could argue that it includes any judge. Most participants who cited the policy felt that it would include the provincial office. Mandsford 00:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lori Douglas[edit]

Lori Douglas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

One salacious event does not make a person notable, per WP:ONEEVENT. Otherwise, there's not enough reliably sourced info to write a proper biography. The sex scandal is going to have vastly too much weight because there's nothing else to cover. Jehochman ^Talk 16:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 16:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --John (talk) 16:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. ONEEVENT almost certainly applies, but the story is a big one which seems to be all over the Canadian media. Currently it is the first hit at http://news.google.ca for each of the following search terms: judge, Manitoba, porn. Therefore I guess sooner or later we will have to cover events in one article or another, although certainly not in the same detail as the news stories. I am not sure what to do at this point. Hans Adler 16:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• In that case, WP:NOTNEWS should be considered as well. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 17:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:NOTNEWS says "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. " Five years from now will anybody remember this subject? Possibly, but I think to be safe we ought to delete the article now, and then revisit the issue later if the subject seem likely to achieve that sort of enduring notability. Jehochman ^Talk 17:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That sounds like a good approach. Hans Adler 17:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Before this scandal came to light, she was deemed suficiently notable as a judge, and she seemed to fit into the same category as most of the other relatively recently appointed judges of the Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba. You can reasonably discuss how much of the recent material ought to be included, but do the recent events make her less notable than she was a weeks ago? David Biddulph (talk) 17:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  There doesn't appear to be a presently-accepted notability guideline for judges (WP:JUDGE being marked as a failed proposal), so notability would be determined via WP:GNG and this seems to fail WP:BLP1E. –xeno^talk 17:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Doesn't WP:POLITICIAN cover it (which is where my judge link above pointed)? I know that it some countries judges are political appointments and in other countries they aren't, but that seemed to be the criterion under which judges were covered. David Biddulph (talk) 17:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Hm - I'm not sure if POLITICIAN applies to Canadian judges: the judiciary is not elected. –xeno^talk 17:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The page was created in July 2007; it was not created because of "one salacious event". Deleting the page would make Justice Douglas the only person appointed to the Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba since 1995 without an article. Why should this justice not have an article when the rest do? Or is it that Canadian judges don't warrant articles, but those from other countries do? Noel S McFerran (talk) 17:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Until there is an accepted notability guideline for judges, WP:GNG applies. She doesn't appear to have met the GNG guideline at the time the article was created either. This may or not be the case for other Manitoba judges, or other judges in general, and while other stuff exists, we should discuss the article on its merits. –xeno^talk 17:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Douglas is one of two Associate Chief Justices of the Court of Queen's Bench (the superior court) of Manitoba. Is there any American judge of comparable rank who does not have a Wikipedia article? Noel S McFerran (talk) 17:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  This is an "other stuff exists" argument - the article should be kept or not based on prevailing inclusion guidelines, not the existence of equivalent articles south of the border. (As I understand it, the American judges are covered by POLITICIAN). –xeno^talk 18:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. In the absence of a community-wide consensus on the notability of judges, and given the concerns I initially expressed (undue weight, not news), I am in agreement with the nominator and second Hans Adler's approval of Jehochman's comments. Drmies (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ONEEVENT applies, but even though the article existing previously, there appears to be nothing per GNG that proves the notability of this individual. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Wikipedia:Notability (people) specifically says "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards": "Politicians. 1. Politicians who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature and judges." (emphasis added) How does this not apply to Douglas? Noel S McFerran (talk) 18:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the top of the parent section, it also says "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." In this case the subject' biography is severely violating WP:UNDUE and there does not appear to be any reasonable way to correct it, other than deletion. Jehochman ^Talk 18:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  (edit conflict) That's under the '#Politicians' subsection, but judges in Canada aren't politicians. –xeno^talk 18:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes - this guideline (and that's all it is) needs to be re-written to reduce confusion. It's completely US-centric - judges in the US have a different status from those in other countries. Certainly here (UK) judges are not automatically notable, and I'd suggest the same applies to Canada. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She's not just any old judge - she's Associate Chief Justice of the superior court. Noel S McFerran (talk) 18:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Connecticut, Superior Court is the lowest court. If she's so important, has somebody written a biography about her? Has she been covered in numerous news articles? What materials are we to use to write her biography, you know, the stuff she does the other 99% of the time when she's not doing...what's been reported in the news. Jehochman ^Talk 19:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be similar in Canada, although she's a member an oversight group for judges. That may be enough to meet criteria. No familiarity with Canadian judicial system, so I can't offer an opinion. Ravensfire (talk) 19:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Superior Court judges are not the lowest courts. In Canada you have the statutorily created provincial courts and the Federal courts. Superior Courts are federally appointed, provincially administered courts of inherent jurisdiction. Judges of the Superior Courts have life tenure until retirement and a great deal of power. Additionally, as Ravensfire she is a member of the CJC which can remove any Canadian judge from the bench (technically, they make a recommendation – but it's a recommendation of a binding nature). 69.165.250.7 (talk) 02:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are the lowest courts where you can get a divorce, go with more than a small claim, and go for a felony. Hans Adler 12:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:BLP1E in no way cancels any notability that she and her peers on the court enjoyed previous to the news reports of a sex scandal. She had an article for years before the lurid stuff came out in news reports. There is a whole category of Canadian women judges and scads of articles about judges at or below the level of her office. The fact that these article generally do not get nominated for deletion may be because there is a consensus to keep articles about judges of a certain rank. Try a group nom of all 45 or so biographies of Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba if you think there is no consensus for notability such as via WP:POLITICIAN. Don't just selectively delete when some unsavory news comes along about one. The bio does not appear to violate WP:UNDUE. Edison (talk) 20:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but revert and fully protect for a month to avoid BLP issues while this thing dies down. Let's revisit in a month and see if the story has legs, but there's really no BLP1E reason to delete a previously trivial/borderline notable BLP just because she's come into the spotlight for salacious (and unproven) allegations. Jclemens (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, appears notable enough previous to current story. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- making big headlines in Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fighting for Justice (talk • contribs) 22:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As a higher-level judge on a regional court, she appears to pass WP:POLITICIAN in terms of notability. Though I agree with the above, it may be appropriate to protect the article to some extent to help sith existing BLP issues. elektrikSHOOS 03:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  That guideline really needs to be clarified; in Canada, judges are not considered politicians. –xeno^talk 13:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - As one of the leading judges in the province of Manitoba, she is certainly notable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.155.155 (talk) 04:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious Keep - for reasons noted and to spite the deletionists.68.144.181.33 (talk) 05:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC) — 68.144.181.33 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  Comment: AfD arguments must be policy-based; expect a !vote "to spite the deletionists", from a single-purpose IP address, to be ignored by the closing admin. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A judge at her level is notable, and almost all the people sitting on that court have articles. DGG ( talk ) 06:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: Since I'm not too familiar with Canadian courts, could I ask what a Superior Court is? Is it a province-wide position or more local or what? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  See Court system of Canada#Superior-level courts of the provinces and territories. They are considered a court of first instance having original jurisdiction. –xeno^talk 13:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep BLP1E does not apply, as she is notable for being a judge at a particular level, for the scandal, and again for leaving office due to the scandal. Notability established by multiple, reliable sources, satisfies GNG. Kindzmarauli (talk) 12:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I do not think simply being a judge at a certain level makes one notable. Can you point out any reliable sources for any information about her, except for the recent sex scandal news? This appears to be a classic case of BLP1E. Except for the scandal, there appears to be insufficient published, reliable information to write more than the shortest of stubs. How are we to write a proper, balanced article? Jehochman ^Talk 12:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, as a start, the first 3 references in the article are nothing to do with the current scandal. David Biddulph (talk) 12:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  That sounds like a good start. Can we expand the article to make it more balanced? One result of this discussion may be fix the article rather than delete it. Jehochman ^Talk 12:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  One suggestion made to me privately as a point of expansion was to see if she has made any notable decisions. –xeno^talk 13:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Please note I have trimmed this article to the essential facts required for a biography of a judge and semi-protected the article. I have also redacted a good number of the old revisions as they all contained material copied and paste from the CBC. –xeno^talk 13:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Lori Douglas is notable as a Justice of the Queen's Bench of Manitoba. This means that she is a federally appointed Judge to the 2nd highest level of court in Canada, below only the Supreme Court of Canada. Further, she is the Associate Chief Justice - meaning that she is the highest ranking Judge in the Province of Manitoba behind only the Chief Justice Marc Monnin reference. Forget about the current scandal. Douglas is notable for her position as a senior ranked Judge in Canada. Larkspurs (talk) 17:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer: This comment is simply incorrect but may have influenced many later !votes because it remained uncontradicted. The Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba is the lowest court for divorces, large claims and felonies, not the highest. "The Manitoba Court of Appeal is the highest court in the province, hearing appeals from the decisions of the Court of Queen's Bench and the Provincial Court in the areas of criminal, civil and family law." [1] Hans Adler 12:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It's silly how people want to remove notability because of a later event. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if this court is along the lines of the 9th circuit (all blue-links) in terms of importance/notability. Keep the alleged scandal stuff to a neutral and BLP-minding standard though, this isn't TMZ. Tarc (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. She's independently notable beyond the current news cycle. That she had an entry three years ago establishes some sort of notability, and she is the Canadian equivalent to a US Circuit Court Judge, which easily meets the GNG. I'd not be opposed to nuking this article and recreating the article as a protected stub, though; the BLP and copyright violations in this article make the history quite a mess. Horologium (talk) 18:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the existence of a Wikipedia article about someone does not establish notability. Many articles on non-notable folks (and even hoaxes) survive for years without being noticed by anybody. The page view statistics from before she got into the news explain this easily.[2] If Wikipedia editors don't even notice an article, they can't prod it or send it to AfD. And for the n-th time, judges in Canada are substantially different from judges in the US. They don't have to convince the masses to be elected, so they are much more private people. Hans Adler 19:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to clarify my intended meaning, which I failed to properly convey. This article predates the controversy, so it's not a coatrack, which is the concern with many of our BLP-violating articles, which are written expressly to "document" the event. I was not saying that the simple existence of the article was enough to establish notability, which could be inferred from my original contribution. Additionally, many judges in the US are not elected, either, so please don't assume that I didn't read your oft-repeated statement before discarding it as irrelevant. Elena Kagan has never been elected to anything; does this mean she is not notable? Notability has little to do with elections, and we don't ordinarily have (or at least keep) articles about unsuccessful candidates for office. I Horologium (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lori Douglas serves in the Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Family Division), Elena Kagan in the Supreme Court of the United States. Quite a difference, even though the Court of Queen's Bench was originally styled a "The Supreme Court". The word doesn't seem to have the same meaning. See Court system of Canada#Superior-level courts of the provinces and territories: "The superior courts are the courts of first instance for divorce petitions, civil lawsuits involving claims greater than small claims, and criminal prosecutions for indictable offences (i.e., felonies in American legal terminology)." In other words, if you live in Manitoba and you want a divorce, you fill in a form, send it to Lori Douglas' court, and before she stepped back from the bench you had a good chance that she would be concerned with the matter. If anything goes wrong it may go to the Manitoba Court of Appeal later.

However, Lori Douglas is "Associate Chief Justice". It's not clear what that means precisely except that she is automatically a member of the Canadian Judicial Council. Most likely the Chief Justice merely presides over internal meetings, and she can replace him in this function. Hans Adler 12:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Please note I have fully protected the article and invite review of this action at ANI. –xeno^talk 19:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• keep looks like it meets our requirements protect it not much else we can do Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – this seems a rather bizarre attempt to remove an article because its subject has moved from solid but discreet notability to nationwide notoriety. [Comment partially redacted, BLP enforcement] Occuli (talk) 23:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• It's true that there is a very real problem here, in that there very often aren't many strong or reliable sources for the majority of Canadian judges; given that they don't have to campaign for election the way judges in the United States do, even on higher courts they tend largely to be lower-profile figures who only attract any real press when they (a) get appointed to the Supreme Court, (b) make a controversial ruling or (c) get themselves into hot water. But conversely, saying that Canadian judges are inherently less notable than American ones does end up looking very much like a U.S.-centric bias even if that isn't the intention. And I also know from incredibly frustrating past experience that when a public figure gets into trouble, we invariably see an influx of anonymous IPs who feel entitled to smear wild BLP violations all over the article out of some misplaced and entirely inappropriate sense of pearl-clutching Well-I-Neverism. That said, I'm unsure how I feel about this; while it's true that she isn't, strictly speaking, a WP:BLP1E, it's also true that there aren't really enough strong sources out there to make her article look like much more than a BLP1E. Weak keep, if only because it's already been here for three years and this discussion wouldn't be taking place if she hadn't suddenly become news this week — but given the lack of genuinely strong sources about anything beyond her kinky sex life, I'm not enthused about it and do hope to see some discussion around better clarifying our overall position on the notability or lack thereof of judges. Bearcat (talk) 21:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The notion that more press renders one less notable just doesn't make much sense Vartanza (talk) 07:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Possibly consider renaming to 2010 Manitoba judicial sex scandal to make the article less BLP-sensitive. Stonemason89 (talk) 00:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think titling an article with the words "sex scandal", while her name is still present in the article, would be less of a BLP issue than the current situation is? Wow. Bearcat (talk) 04:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We wouldn't have to mention her by name. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Sex scandal" is inherently a violation of WP:NPOV, and shouldn't appear in the article, let alone the title. And mentioning her name or not (and I fail to see how you would avoid it), it's still a BLP issue as she is involved in the event. Moreover, if you're suggesting that the subject of the article should change completely, it makes more sense to create a separate article; this article is about the individual, not a single event in which she was involved. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I am repeating this here because I am not sure that people read all the relevant discussion above: Lori Douglas' court is not the highest court in Manitoba. It is the lowest court for anything more substantial than small claims. In fact, it is the lowest court for divorces. Hans Adler 11:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per BLP1E. No evidence of significant coverage about the subject beyond the scandal to establish notability. --Jmundo (talk) 21:49, 8 September 2010 (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.