Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margaret Moore (attorney)

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. Note that WP:POLOUTCOMES is an essay, and not policy. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Moore (attorney)

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Some coverage, but not significant. Boleyn (talk) 19:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not inherently notable, no indication of notability apart from her county office; and I see no coverage other the usual mentions any county prosecutor would get. TJRC (talk) 20:23, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being a district attorney at the county level is not an automatic notability freebie that entitles a person to have an article just because she exists, but the sourcing here isn't helping her pass WP:GNG for it: there's her primary source profile on the self-published website of the DA's office, which is not a source that can assist notability at all, and just four pieces of the purely routine local media coverage that any county DA could simply expect to receive. It takes a lot more than this to get a DA in the wikidoor. Bearcat (talk) 07:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:POLOUTCOMES. We have tended to keep DAs of larger counties - especially in this case, she is the chief prosecutor of a larger (1 Million plus) county. Bearian (talk) 02:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The notability standard for county DAs is not a population test, but a sourceability test — and the volume of sourcing here isn't passing it. No size of county hands its DA an automatic inclusion freebie that exempts her from having to pass the sourceability test. Bearcat (talk) 21:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear to me that any part of the WP:POLOUTCOMES essay supports keeping. TJRC (talk) 22:33, 6 September 2017 (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.