Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmen E. Garza

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen E. Garza

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

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

Delete per WP:USCJN - [Magistrate judges] are.. "not inherently notable" and per consensus at WP:Articles for deletion/Margaret J. Schneider. Article appears to focus more on misconduct allegations than subject itself Snickers2686 (talk) 22:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, United States of America, and New Mexico. Snickers2686 (talk) 22:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Magistrate judges are not inherently notable, but some do rise to the level of notability. This judge was the subject of a "rare public order" that "appeared to be the first time that an order had addressed abusive conduct by a federal judge" under judicial employment dispute resolution rules that had not previously been applied. This means the subject's alleged actions were the focus of scrutiny in an order that has implications for other federal judicial employees in the United States, illustrating a broader level of importance than the "run of the mill magistrate judge" cited in the AfD discussion for the cited comparator. And the conduct was publicly attributed to this specific judge, which is not especially common since judges accused of similar conduct often force the closing of any investigations by resigning. I think these factors push this over the line for notability. SeenToBeDone (talk) 03:11, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Completely agree with the nom that magistrate judges are not inherently notable, but the misconduct allegations against her have resulted in enough coverage from a multitude of sources for this subject to meet WP:BASIC, such as in the Washington Post (in the article), Bloomberg [[1]] and Reuters [[2]]. Some rewriting is likely needed but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. User:Let'srun 01:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 10:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This particular individual seems notable for the judicial "item" that was used for the first time over the misconduct allegations. No judgement on the merits of the accusations, but this lifts the particular biography into notability for the amount of coverage it had. Oaktree b (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2023 (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.