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. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 01:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Priest (judge)[edit]

Pat Priest (judge) (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)

entire article is 4 sentences and those are already covered in Tom DeLay campaign finance trial TacfuJecan (talk) 22:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I have added some additional references unrelated to the DeLay case. The fact that Priest's involvement in DeLay's trial is his most notable activity does not prevent him from being independently notable. bd2412 T 22:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I would say from looking at the references, there is just enough to keep him. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - District judges make controversial rulings and oversee big cases throughout their careers, many times when they involve high-profile defendants, which means they are often mentioned in newspapers. But their jobs do not make them notable. Besides a lot of mentions because of the DeLay case, nothing is notable about the subject. There is not enough significant coverage of the subject to render him notable. This article does not pass WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 03:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:GNG is not the appropriate standard here; it is Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges/Notability#Judges of state trial courts of general jurisdiction. bd2412 T 04:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - The criteria for Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges/Notability#Judges of state trial courts of general jurisdiction states, "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." Evidence of this judge's notability cannot and has not been established by other indicia. The coverage for such notability is simply not there. It fails. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 14:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The sources cited in this article substantiate notability per WP:GNG. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:05, 27 March 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.