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. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 05:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Diana Gonzalez-Whyte (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable Judge lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix ( talk) 17:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 23. — cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 17:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 23. — cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 20:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete County judges are not automatically notable and this article lacks the coverage required to meet the GNG. 131.118.229.17 ( talk) 01:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica ¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete a county judge? non-notable, even with the OR speculative item, "thus becoming the first Colombian/American Judge by election in the State of Florida and likely the United States of America" --mighty weak claim to encyclopedia inclusion. Cramyourspam ( talk) 18:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep wondering where there is some rule saying county judges are not notable? That doesn't make sense -- some counties are highly populous, such as Miami-Dade, while others are rural, and will get less media coverage; still, it depends on what happens within the county, and whether the subject is notable. The WP:GNG applies, with sufficient sources, since she's a big deal in the Columbian-American community, although she does not get as much attention in the American press. The previous version of her article was too long and unsourced, but hopefully improved as per WP:HEYMANN. There is a substantive article about her here after her investiture, mention here, major article here, major article here, mention here, mention here, article here. Another thing: a public defender handling 4,000 cases -- that is substantial. Big reason to keep: she'll throw out parking tickets for Wikipedians who get ticketed in the Miami-Dade county area, so I've been told.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 23:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Judges at this level are not inherently notable. Being of Colombian descent doesn't improve her notability. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Firstly, judges at this level are not inherently notable — higher level judges, such as a state or federal Supreme Court or a federal District Court, count under our subject-specific inclusion rules for judges, but judges at the county level live or die on WP:GNG. Secondly, her ethnic background doesn't make her more notable than she would be otherwise — if she were the first judge from any Latina background at all, I'd accept that for notability, but not just "the first Colombian-American" (as if whether she were Colombian or Venezuelan or Peruvian or Nicaraguan made an appreciable difference to her career prospects). Thirdly, this article as written is hardly more than a blurb which asserts her existence but offers no real substance to demonstrate why she should be considered worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. And finally, the volume of sourcing here isn't sufficient to claim a WP:GNG pass. Bearcat ( talk) 22:52, 7 October 2014 (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.