Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denis P. Cohen

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 redirect to David Cohen. The non-existence of sourcing and poor tone make it a bad idea to keep this article around at the moment, and the notability concerns are quite real. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 14:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Denis P. Cohen

Denis P. Cohen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)--

Non notable biography; mostly unverifiable, looks like a vanity listing, similar articles about several members of the same family RedShiftPA (talk) 23:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep Won election for 10 year term as judge for starters, which always passed on wikipedia. The article needs citations and lots of work, but I can't see for the life of me WHY you would AFD him for "notability". I found plenty of published cases by him by googling ' judge "Denis P. Cohen" ', and this pushes the limits of wp:agf. Pharmboy (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment As you have added the other two, I can't help but to see they are all 3 notable. I am not sure why you don't think elected officials are not notable, and I think her activities and associations past muster as well. I still say speedy keep and be done. Pharmboy (talk) 23:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete By your standard, a traffic court judge in Nome, Alaska is notable. Notability is established by being the subject of non-trivial, reliable and independent sources. Having an opinion released on the internet is none of those things. It merely establishes that he is a judge. An article about his more notable father and brother that mentions his existence as a judge does not constitute a source of which he is the subject. Full disclosure: I originally prodded the article and wished that the nom had contacted me prior to the AFD. Montco (talk) 00:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • As to the other two, David Cohen is quite notable in Philly and I could find sources easily so keep on that. Florence Cohen was never elected to anything so she doesn't even have that to fall back on. Weak delete as a figure in Philadelphia who could have some notability if sources were provided.Montco (talk) 00:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I would say winning a state or fed election is automatically noteworthy, city or county election for higher office (sherriff, mayor) is likely as well. That seems the purpose of an encyclopedia, particularly since wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. As for her, I can see where that is borderline. Pharmboy (talk) 00:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• comment All three are up for delete here, which I think is a terrible mistake, to lump them together. Are you saying delete all 3? Pharmboy (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. The main driving force behind this article is User:Zulitz. His/her endeavours [1] have brought to the attention of the wider world the activities of (takes deep breath) Mark B. Cohen, David Cohen, Florence Cohen, Mark J. Cohen as well as the subject here, Denis P. Cohen. As early as last February, Montco was at Zulitz' talk page imploring, probably close to tears of exasperation, that "I must insist on some sources for this shrine to Rep. Cohen" [2]. I can only ask here - Zulitz, do you have any more up your sleeve that you're keeping from us? Perhaps a Zebediah T. Cohen? The mysterious Russian cousin Igor M. Cohen? The mad step-aunt locked in the attic, Gwendoline Audrey P. Cohen? Your audience eagerly waits for the magician to reveal his hand. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 00:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • COMMENT It really doesn't matter if he is family or friend if the article meets policy, and you are violating wp:agf. You can make a claim of COI on the pages if you think that is the issue. But attacking him (and the articles were decently written) simply because he is adding people that are ARGUABLY notable is not wp:civil, particularly since he is not participating in the conversation. In other words, don't be a dick. Argue in good faith over content, not about the author. Pharmboy (talk) 00:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Now now, Pharmboy. I was violating nothing, other than the author's pride. I have attacked nobody, but, hopefully, managed to raise a smile among those who have read my remarks. I would be grateful if you would refrain from referring to me as a "dick", simply because I draw attention to a thread among the author's contributions. Have I made myself clear? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 00:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Your sole contribution to the conversation has been personal criticism of the author. Yes, that is pretty clear. Pharmboy (talk) 00:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

As you said to somebody else on your own talk page (I'll leave the grammatical errors in for purposes of accuracy in quotation) "You are reading entirely too much "personal" in this. I don't know you, it can't be personal. Continuing to think was personal is a waste of your time, please don't make it a waste of mine. Please look around and read some of the basic policies here, and see how others handle issues. A reply is not necessary." Other than grammatical accuracy, I couldn't have put it better myself. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 01:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not taking it personal as you didn't attack me. You are attacking the author of the article on a person basis, making fun of his contributions, and he is not here to defend his actions. That is why I linked the "dont be a dick" article, as that IS being a dick. You have not made a single vote on the subject at hand or said anything constructive about whether the articles should be deleted or kept, you just waltz in and start smarting off about the author. If you don't have anything constructive to add to the conversation, then don't bother. Pharmboy (talk) 01:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, Pharmboy, (nomen est omen), I hardly think that calling people "a dick" is anything constructive, is it? I'm of the opinion that my contributions have been highly beneficial to both the tone of the debate and its eventual resolution. Over to you. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 01:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I may have been too hasty in nominating these articles together. I will try to untangle this.--RedShiftPA (talk) 00:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No evidence to suggest that this judge satisfies WP:N or WP:BIO. In places it reads like someone's holiday letter rather than an encyclopedia article (His sister has 3 kids and works in a medical office, he was elected president of the Overbrook Farms Club, etc). No references. (edited)Edison (talk) 01:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• KeepThis article was just started last month, and it needs more work. Judge Cohen is a Democrat appointed to the bench to a major trial court by Governor Tom Ridge and confirmed by the Republican-controlled state senate in time for him to be sworn in to office in December, 2000. He was then elected citywide with the support of both the Democratic and Republican parties in 2001. Now beginning his 8th year on the Common Pleas Court in a city of almost 1.5 million people, he is certainly a notable public figure. He notabiltiy is enhanced by the fact that he served under three District Attorneys who then won statewide office, U.S.Senator Arlen Specter, Governor Ed Rendell, and Pennsylvania Chief Justice (effective January 1, 2008) Ron Castille. User:Zulitz, 11:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment User:Zulitz wrote and did most of the editing for this article --RedShiftPA (talk) 07:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Perhaps the subject is notable, but there is little evidence of notability from the article. Tone sounds like a family tree listings. Second comments by[[[User:Edison|Edison]].
• Delete per WP:BIO. Local trial court judges are not inherently notable. Note that Denis P. Cohen is just one of 93 judges in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. [3] Looking at Category:Pennsylvania state court judges, one will find that most of the Pennsylvania state court judges who have Wikipedia articles are those who also served in the U.S. Congress or as Federal judges -- with very few who only served as local trial court judges. As a means of comparison, we have an article about Judge Lance Ito but not for most (if any) of his colleagues in the Superior Court of California for Los Angeles County who have their chambers in the same building. Why not? Because he is notable per WP:BIO, and they generally aren't. If Denis Cohen presides over a nationally publicized trial, then it might be appropriate to have an article about him, but I don't see anything like that here. Finally, working for famous bosses does not make an employee inherently notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• By the way, the Philadelphia District Attorney's office employs "600 lawyers, detectives and support staff" [4], so being an assistant district attorney in Philadelphia is not a rare status either. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Question Where is the deletion rationale provided by the nominator? I do not see one. LaMenta3 (talk) 06:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Rationale was restored. Looks like it was accidentally deleted.--RedShiftPA (talk) 07:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as a stub of a reasonably notable sitting judge of several years. I deleted all the cruft and the libelous content. Why would such material be libel, you ask? A judge is prohibited by ABA Model Rules from serving as a fiduciary for non-bar-association charities. To allege that he "deeply involved" in charity work is to invite his disbarment from the bench. Even if true, WP should not be involved in starting a proceeding before a judicial conduct commission. It looks much better now. I'm sure all of it can be verified with a simple Google search. Bearian (talk) 18:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• By what standard is he "reasonably notable"? WP:BIO says that "Just being an elected local official ... does not guarantee notability ...." --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, I suspect that the article was not intended to be libelous, due to its otherwise hagiographic content. More likely, the civic activities described either took place before the subject became a judge or were of the kind that judges are allowed to participate in. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Someone should really add a section on how he ran over redshiftpa's dog. Mykej (talk) 18:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Paularblaster (talk) 21:48, 23 December 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.