Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judge's associate

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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Judge's associate

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

Fails WP:GNG, but, more important, duplicates the Australian section of law clerk. No need for a standalone article. Bbb23 (talk) 23:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This discussion seems to imply that the Associate, a rather nebulous character in Trial by Jury (1875), was a term used in the nineteenth century in at least one country other than Australia. --GuillaumeTell 00:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how that's really relevant. The article is so poorly contextualized that if it weren't for the only source (the Australian handbook), the reader wouldn't even know what the article was talking about. If there's a reliable source indicating that "Judge's associate" has some noteworthy meaning other than in Australia, than I suppose you (or someone) would have to find that source to evaluate its impact on this AfD, if any.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The article is so poorly contextualized that if it weren't for the only source (the Australian handbook), the reader wouldn't even know what the article was talking about." I am not seeing this. I do not agree with this.

"I suppose you (or someone) would have to find that source". The onus is on the nominator to look for sources and confirm that there aren't any. Are you saying that you have not done that? James500 (talk) 03:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is, at most, a proposal for merger into Law clerk, where judge's associates are already discussed. Deletion is not applicable on grounds of duplication alone if the page name is a plausible redirect, which the nominator has not denied.
Google Books produces 2890 results for this expression. Amongst them are number of textbooks indicating that, in New Zealand, this term referred to a court stenographer. And I see material relating to England and Wales, including legislation in the Statutes at Large. James500 (talk) 02:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per extensive use of the term in RS. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 04:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and split relevant material out of law clerk and into this new article. This has some potential I think. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to our article Law clerk, "previous associates have written that the nature of the associate's role is different from that of a law clerk in the United States". This suggests that they are not the same thing. James500 (talk) 22:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC) I agree that the relevant material should be moved from Law clerk to this article. James500 (talk) 23:51, 2 December 2011 (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.