- 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The result was withdrawn. The article seems to pass a guideline which I overlooked. Beerest355 Talk 22:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Jackson Temple (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Stubby article that makes no attempt at proving notability. Being a supreme court justice doesn't guarantee notability. Beerest355 Talk 20:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Passes WP:JUDGE which does seem a reasonable guarantee. See History of the Bench and Bar of California, for example. Warden (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A state supreme court justice passes WP:POLITICIAN. His New York Times obituary is here and a more detailed one from a California paper is here. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:12, 4 August 2013 (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.