Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Malcolm Duhé, Jr.

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The result was AfD withdrawn by nominator Newyorkbrad 01:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Malcolm Duhé, Jr.

Subject is not notable per WP:BIO Mwelch 03:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

NOMINATION WITHDRAWN per discussion below. Mwelch 20:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Retired judge of no note. Mwelch 03:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Mwelch. --Dhartung | Talk 05:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per discussion. --Dhartung | Talk 19:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep A majority of the circuit judges have Wikipedia bios. Why is Duhe being singled out? Because he recently retired? That doesn't make sense. Chicken Wing 08:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note Check out this talk page. It seems there is an effort to delete every biographical article that user is involved with. Perhaps this effort was a little overzealous as at least one legitimate article has been caught in the crossfire. Chicken Wing 08:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• I cannot speak for Mwelch, but that Talk page shows that Billy Hathorn (talk · contribs) has a record of creating biographical articles of questionable notability. Some of them have been kept, others have been deleted (both via AFD and CSD). I certainly have no intent of nominating "every biographical article that user is involved with", only the ones where notability is lacking or questionable. Hathorn does have skill as an editor and has applied that to articles that are obvious keeps, such as Lieutenant Governors or members of the state legislature. --Dhartung | Talk 10:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Well, that was my point of directing to his talk page. He seems to create questionable bios, and so there has been an effort to delete them. What I'm saying is that this article got caught up in all of that, but it doesn't belong. Almost all the fifth circuit judges have bios. This one shouldn't be singled out simply because Billy Hathorn has edited it. Chicken Wing 11:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Let me just say that it certainly wasn't any attempt to "single out" Judge Duhe. I simply didn't see any indication in WP:BIO that notability is inherent, that's all. If there is such a strong consensus (and obviously, it is) that they are, I have no problem backing down on it and offering my apologies. I suspect I did err due to haste in the research though. I went to newslibrary.com yet now I see results where before I did not. I suspect now that I misspelled his name on my first attempt, and I just did not slow down enough to notice the error. Mwelch 20:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per above, and at least 1 published article was written about this guy [1], probably more since it's a bit hard to track down articles from the 1980s. Papers do tend to write about judges. --W.marsh 14:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as circuit judges, regardless of tenure or impact, have all authored notable decisions. He is referenced on pages about the 5th circuit and his appointment to the bench was itself a notable event. --sortaSean 16:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. The United States Courts of Appeals are the level of federal courts one level below the Supreme Court of the United States. Judges past and present on these courts are inherently notable (at least I certainly hope they are, as I have created about 25 of their biographies). Newyorkbrad 17:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. I'm a little surprised at this nomination to be honest. A U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals judge? These people are inherently notable, even if they are not famous. Retired yes, but this person held a tremendous amount of power during his career as a judge- definitely not a small potato. If the page needs sources, let's source it. I'll try to help out with this one. Thanks, Scienter 17:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

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.