Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary-Beth Sharp

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. I find the notability is not inhereted argument persuasive and unrefuted. Daniel (talk) 10:28, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mary-Beth Sharp

edit

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Mary-Beth Sharp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsure if meets notability criteria, and is overwhelmingly negative Nauseous Man (talk) 06:48, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

as an addendum to this, I believe that the image being used is probably copyright abuse. Nauseous Man (talk) 06:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

She is notable for more than one event. One, she is a judge. Two, Sharp was involved in a dispute with a fellow judge and coworker. Three, Sharp was discharged without conviction but ordered to pay $500 in compensation. Also are also multiple news articles about her with more than one different events. 0800cpc (talk — Preceding undated comment added 08:19, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • If I can respond: that's precisely my point, this is completely routine coverage by judge standards. Because Judges stand for justice, newspapers (and their readers) love stories of judges - or their friends, associates and relatives - getting on the wrong side of the law. I'd imagine every judge in the world has a handful of such stories behind them. They only have to lose their bus-ticket or get a parking ticket and a newspaper will write an in-depth and accurate report about it. The standards of notability for judges have to be a bit higher. Really I'd like to see the judge actually guilty of something before I'd regard her crime as notable; in this case, the miscreant appears not to be the judge. Logically, if we're establishing notability based on the current news-stories, we'd be better justified in writing an article about the judge's son's dog! Elemimele (talk) 20:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an update to my own comment, all five files uploaded by this user have now been deleted from Commons and the user has been blocked there for one week for copyvio. Schwede66 04:01, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete going on the spirit of notability and vibe I have gotten from other AfD. Being involved in a dispute with a neighbour and having a son does not make one notable WP:BIOFAMILY. Every media commentator is not notable just because they get their name in the paper talking about things "unrelated" to themselves. One assumes the son was in all the articles as well, now if anyone asked him how he feels about his mothers neighborhood dispute we could have a page for him too. There is also a living bio problem here if the media is on a witch hunt and semi doxing relations of wrong doers we don't need to play along (WP:AVOIDVICTIM if we "pared back to a version that is ... on-topic" there is not much left). Dushan Jugum (talk) 19:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looking for additional sources, all I find is routine coverage of trial decisions. Looking at the sources in the article, there is the barely-significant coverage of the dog-walking incident and the floodlight dispute, both of which are minor incidents of no importance. The multiple refs about her son and his partner flouting COVID protocols are not significant coverage of her. Not notable under WP:ANYBIO or WP:JUDGE, and I contend that though the type and extent of coverage in sources might be considered sufficient to satisfy the letter of WP:GNG, they do not meet the spirit of WP:BIO: the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note"—that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. Schazjmd (talk) 22:28, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Is there anyone that is Mary-Beth Sharp lawyer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0800cpc (talk • contribs) 02:23, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:0800cpc are you the page creator and blocked user mentioned above, can you develop your argument. Dushan Jugum (talk) 05:08, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the information is on this wiki mostly negative, however it is truthful facts, and it has been displayed in a very netural journalistic way. If this wikpedia page is deleted, censorship is being committed, of a living person. If we remove this page, people will turn to mainstream media for information; we are not incontrol of mainstream media so they could get away with twisting information. A judge is a very high profile person that makes important decisions that will shape society. If we censor information about a Judge, what happens if that Judge is corrupt? Corruption is overwhelmingly negative but it is the truth, so we can't say that because it is too "overwhelmingly negative". This page contains overwhelmingly negative information, however it is not say in a overwhelmingly negative tone. If this page is overwhelmingly negative and that doesn't comply with the rules, we can twist it to make it sound positive. Lastly, I am questioning the integrity of these articles for deletion; because people that have made submissions may have links with Judge Mary-Beth Sharp. As I can understand that Judge Mary-Beth Sharp would want this information about her censored, but Wikipedia doesn't support censorship. I live in New Zealand, so I can properly understand the situation better. comment added by 0800cpc (talk
  • Delete One event and notability more due to son and his dog. — NZFC(talk)(cont) 02:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a petty article. Could be one sentence in a general article about covid in NZ. As to If we remove this page, people will turn to mainstream media for information; we are not incontrol of mainstream media so they could get away with twisting information, that's a ridiculous argument at the best of times, and anyway in this case all the citations are to mainstream media. Somej (talk) 05:41, 5 December 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mary-Beth_Sharp&oldid=1059085718"