Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"Better Courts for Missouri"

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 per consensus and improvements. The article needs to be moved to Better Courts for Missouri, a title currently protected against creation. I will contact the protecting admin about the proper relocation of the article. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Better Courts for Missouri"

"Better Courts for Missouri" (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Procedural nom. Tagged for speedy A7, but has had some media coverage. The references provided don't seem to be enough to meet WP:N guidelines though. On a related note, Better Courts for Missouri (without quotes) was deleted and protected after these comments, but the content and contributor appear to be different. Marasmusine (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep, : For what it's worth, Better Courts is an influential in Missouri Politics, and I am in the process of developing it's Wiki, and adding more sources. (Twooclockjazz (talk) 16:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC))— Twooclockjazz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Strong Delete many problems as stated by redfarmer, futhermore, I have to question who twoclockjazz is, a search of there wiki activity is week and seems to be involved in these conflicts.Thright (talk) 18:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Google search reveals substantial news activity from major newspapers, including St. Louis Post Dispatch and Kansas City Star. Organization is clearly legitimate. Rather than delete, I encourage addition of more sources. (Freemarketman (talk) 19:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC))— Freemarketman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

KC Star

MissouriNet

St. Louis Post

St. Louis Post

St. Joseph News Press

Wall Street Journal

Columbia Tribune

Columbia Missourian

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Freemarketman (talk • contribs) 19:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep I feel the same way about this as Freemarketman. I would also like to go on to say that, to me at least, the page has met the qualifications laid out in WP:N. (Grange1272 (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)) — Grange1272 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete. Yes, some people seem to oppose the way judges are selected in Missouri, but this particular group does not appear to satisfy WP:ORG. Of the sources listed by Freemarketman above, the last four don't even mention the organization (this is also true of some of the references cited in the article itself), and the only one that offers what might charitably be construed as substantial coverage is the Missourinet piece. I don't see enough to establish the notability of this recently formed interest group. Deor (talk) 01:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Deor, the St. Louis Post and the Kansas City Star are Missouri's largest newspapers. Both specifically mention the organization. Missourinet is the Missouri radio version of the Associated Press. News covered by Missourinet is syndicated throughout the state. Also, the St. Louis Post article credits reform advocates, including Better Courts for Missouri, with pushing the Chief Justice of the Missouri Supreme Court to change policy. Specifically, the Chief Justice committed to adding more openness to the judicial selection process after Better Courts and its supporters began advocating reform.

A Lexis search reveals several articles by Missouri's preeminent legal newspaper, Missouri Lawyers Weekly. A number of these articles -- including what appears to be a cover story from the last week -- specifically mention Better Courts for Missouri.

For instance, one discusses a recent debate sponsored by the Federalist Society between Missouri Bar leadership and Better Courts for Missouri leadership. A wiki search of the Federalist Society indicates Better Courts for Missouri must have a decent amount of notoriety to have been invited to the Federalist Society's forum. ^ Wiese, Kelly. Daily Record "Proposed changes to Missouri Plan gather steam at Capitol." 2008-12-03.

(69.29.78.196 (talk) 01:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC))— 69.29.78.196 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


Yes, I lived in Missouri for 23 years, and I'm aware of the status of the Post-Dispatch (note the name) and the Star. I stand by my statement that the articles linked to above do not constitute substantial coverage of the organization. With regard to the debate, since the panelist identified as a BCfM co-founder was also the former president of the St. Louis Federalist Society itself, it's perhaps not surprising that he was participating. Deor (talk) 02:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Deor, wouldn't it increase the significance of BCfM if one of its co-founders were a former President of the Federalist Society? 69.29.78.196 (talk) 02:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Of the sources listed by Freemarketman above, the last four don't even mention the organization. This is a valid point. But while it may be true that some of the sources don't mention BCfM specifically, they certainly mention its members (William Placke being the obvious example). It should also be also be noted that even if the sources mentioned above are not enough to satisfy WP:ORG, a simple lexus/google search should. I did some basic google searching a few hours ago and found a giant stack of sources (AP, Post-Dispatch, etc. most of which have already been mentioned by the above contributer) which, in my mind, should satiate the requirments. If this is still unable to prove the groups legitimacy and notability, I wish someone would enlighten me on what could. (Grange1272 (talk) 05:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC))— Grange1272 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Specifically, coverage required for WP:N needs to be directly about the subject. Of the links above, only MissouriNet is a possibility, but it's still rather short and multiple coverage is preferable. I remain neutral. Marasmusine (talk) 08:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Looked at a few of the articles linked to above. Group looks minimally notable and sources are enough to keep. Hobit (talk) 18:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
    • You may want to look at Deor's comments above. Redfarmer (talk) 10:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I would encourage you to read 69.29.78.196's sources below. (Grange1272 (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC))
      • Still think keep is pretty clear...Hobit (talk) 01:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


  • Comment I did some Lexus searching recently, and here are a few things I came up with.

"Placke and Jonathan Bunch, executive director of the newly formed “Better Courts” group, said the judges' retention elections virtually are meaningless, because no Supreme or appeals court judge ever has been removed from the bench." Watson, Bob. "Stith touts changes in judicial selection process". Jefferson City News Tribune. 06 Feb. 2008

"In Missouri, that would include groups called Better Courts for Missouri and the Adam Smith Foundation; legislators like Rep. Jim Lembke, R-St. Louis County and state Sen. Charlie Shields, R-St. Joseph; the Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry; and sundry other outfits on the right who don't like the way the Missouri Non-Partisan Courts Plan operates." Horrigan, Kevin. "Stranger Than Fiction." ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH 03 Feb 2008

"Opponents of Missouri's judicial selection process have formed a new group to push for change.The organization calling itself "Better Courts for Missouri" says it wants to make the selection of judges more open and accountable to Missourians. Supporters of the current judicial selection method say the new group simply would inject more money and politics into the courts." "Judicial selection opponents form group" Associated Press 30 Jan 2008.

"The Bar’s leadership is dominated by and beholden to trial lawyers, who often argue cases before the state’s judges, said Bill Placke, co-founder of Better Courts for Missouri, a judicial reform group. “There’s no good reason that plaintiff’s attorneys should be selecting the judges before whom they argue cases,” Placke said." "Missouri Plan gets scrutiny and support today" KC Star

And this is just a small sample of the largest newspapers in the state. If you'd like more, feel free to ask. (Grange1272 (talk) 19:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC))— Grange1272 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

These are all trivial references. To establish notability, you need to show that the organization itself has been covered by the newspapers and not just mentioned in passing in reference to other news stories. Redfarmer (talk) 10:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment: I've left a note on Grange1272's talk page asking him not to vote more than once. I do question whether there is vote skewing going on, though, judging by the number of single purpose accounts that have showed up to support this. Redfarmer (talk) 10:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: As 69.29.78.196 writes below, these are not trivial sources, nor was Better Courts mentioned "in passing". Each of these articles were written directly as a result of calls for reform in Missouri, and Better Courts was seen as the major advocacy group here. Again as 69.29.78.196 writes below, this group's calls for reform has led to three bills, an initiative petition, and an ongoing debate across the state. Shouldn't a group this influential have it's own wiki page? (Grange1272 (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC))

Comment: I have reviewed the references on the Better Courts for Missouri wiki. The organization has been specifically mentioned in publications by the Kansas City Star, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Missourinet, the Missouri Bar Association, the Jefferson City News Tribune (state capital's newspaper), among others. I respectfully suggest the extensive coverage the organization has received in a short period of time makes it notable. 69.29.78.196 (talk) 01:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)— 69.29.78.196 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment: :Redfarmer, the references may seem trivial to you, but as someone who follows Missouri politics I would like to point out that every one of those articles was generated as the result of the advocacy of Better Courts for Missouri. The organization's website explains that it exists to encourage reform of the Missouri Plan for selecting judges. Each of these articles is about that very topic. Wouldn't it make sense to have an encyclopedia entry for the main 501(c)(4) that is urging reform? 69.29.78.196 (talk) 13:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: As for Better Courts for Missouri, it appears that Missourinet -- syndicated all over Missouri -- the Kansas City Business Journal and Missouri Lawyers Weekly have all done some sort of profile of the organization. These are linked on the main page. 69.29.78.196 (talk) 13:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I would also point out that this entry has more references and sources than does the "Missouri Plan" entry, which is the subject of the ongoing debate in Missouri. 69.29.78.196 (talk) 13:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Here are a few articles about the organization:

(1)Jefferson City News Tribune (2)City Business Journal (3)MissouriNet (4)Associated Press 69.29.78.196 (talk) 13:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

      • Agree with Hobit. Keep seems pretty clear, especially in light of references immediately above posted by 69.29.78.196. Freemarketman (talk) 13:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Sorry for this late entry, I've been without internet for the weekend, but I'd like to respond to some allegations that my account is some kind of SPA. Yes, I am a wiki-novice, but everyone starts somewhere, and I thought it would be fun to begin with a page on a group that has cause quite a stir at the capitol. Perhaps I should have waited until I was a more established user to start such a controversial page, but I was unaware it would be so controversial at the time. There's not much that I can add that hasn't already been stated by others on the board, but I would simply like to say that this group is notable (just ask anyone at the capitol. Tempers will flare.) (Twooclockjazz (talk) 15:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC))

Twooclockjazz, I think your contributions have been taken in good faith, I hope you don't feel that you are being "accused" of anything! I'm happy with the sources 69.29.78.196 has posted, so will change my not-vote to Keep. Marasmusine (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I did not mean to imply anything specifically about you Twooclockjazz and I apologize if I came off that way. I was simply concerned with the number of accounts and ips showing up out of nowhere whose only contributions are to this discussion or the article in question. I believe you are probably acting in good faith. Redfarmer (talk) 17:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment If the article is kept, I expect it to be moved to Better Courts for Missouri without the incorrect quotation marks, which for some reason I could not do. Reywas92Talk 22:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. Better Courts for Missouri without quotation marks has been protected. If the article is kept, I'll see what I can do about getting that page unprotected. (Twooclockjazz (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC))

Strong Keep The article has 13 references now, most of which are published news articles about the group. There's no reason to delete now other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Also unprotect the version w/o quotes and rename. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I can find no evidence that anyone on either side of the debate has advocated WP:IDONTLIKEIT in the course of this discussion. Please stick to the issue at hand and don't imply motives for which there is no evidence. Redfarmer (talk) 17:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm about to the point where I'm ready to change my vote due to improvements. However, I would ask first the creator of the article address possible conflict of interest problems, i.e. is it someone from the organization writing the article? Redfarmer (talk) 17:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • And Keep, the creator has satisfied me that they are not involved in a COI. I still can't speak for the many single purpose accounts that have shown up, but I'm satisfied the creator isn't one of them. BTW, kudos for bringing the quality of the article up in such a short period of time. Impressive. Redfarmer (talk) 23:51, 20 March 2008 (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.