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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eunkyong Choi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV from reliable independent sources, nor meet WP:JUDGE. Special trial judges are mere employees of the court they sit on and are not Senate confirmed positions, similar to magistrate judges. The first source is a blog, the second is a press release, the third is Ballotpedia, and the last one is independent but lacks depth. Let'srun (talk) 22:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, Missouri, New York, and Washington, D.C.. Let'srun (talk) 22:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete don’t see any possibility of notability, the sources are not eligible, could not find anything a tad better by myself Vorann Gencov (talk) 07:35, 11 July 2024 (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.