524:
points raised by other project members. I am confident that the more active members of the project are aware of the guidelines, and would not hesitate to raise any particular objection that they have. In short, I think that it does represent a consensus on the project. That said, I would welcome any proposals for improvement. With respect to the issue at hand, it may be true that a nominee in this day and age is likely to get immediate coverage, but is this the case for all
496:. I believe that an Article III nominee is inherently notable. Being nominated by the President of the United States for one of the limited number (about 3000, counting appellate courts) of Article III lifetime positions is notable, end of story. Can anyone possibly imagine that any such nominee is not subject to immediate coverage in reliable sources? Even if not confirmed, the circumstances of the confirmation failure or withdrawal gets sufficient coverage to ensure
435:
than to wait for their confirmation. Additionally, Article III Judges who have been confirmed have a presumption of notability, per long precedent. I see no reason for deletion, which could lead to a deletion spree of other recently created articles. If this nominee ultimately fails to be confirmed, we can pursue deletion at that time.
523:
TJRC, I must reject your assessment of the USCJ notability guidelines. Although the number of editors participating in writing these guidelines has been small, they have been discussed at various points over the history of the project. Some of the edits I have made to those guidelines have reflected
504:
says "Nominees whose nomination has not yet come to a vote are not inherently notable," but I disagree. Looking at the edit history to that page, it seems largely the work of a small number of editors thanklessly trying to corral and codify the
Wikiproject's positions, but cannot be seen as actually
434:
By longstanding precedent, articles have been created on
Article III Judicial nominees at the time of their nomination. While technically these individuals may not satisfy the Knowledge (XXG) notability guidelines at the time of their nomination, we find it easier to create such articles now, rather
263:
All federal judicial nominees have an article pretaining to their nomination, regardless of the outcome of said nomination. All federal judges have information regarding their nomination process and both biographical and legal background information. So I'm at a loss as to why this article should be
383:
Date and place of birth have already been added from another source. As more information becomes available, it will be added, but for now, I think what is there is sufficient enough to keep the article. As I've said, there's precedent for many other judicial nominees having articles and I don't see
677:
We typically have articles for all federal judicial nominees, and I don't see why this case should be any different. It may be jumping the gun a bit to create the pages prior to confirmation, but since the vast majority of federal judicial nominees go on to be confirmed, I don't see the harm in
554:
You're saying that the vetting process done by
Senators PRIOR to becoming a candidate and/or being nominated is now needed? Am I understanding that right? Honestly, I've never known that to be public record until the questionnaires are released by committee or the Senator(s) office does a press
306:
I would think so because a short bio comes out on the White House website, so that gives content for an article. Plus, once their nomination is received in committee, then there's a more extensive background to add due to the release of a questionnaire. Not to mention if they're an accomplished
569:
I'm not talking about the vetting process, but about the process by which this name got on the
President's desk. Federal judges aren't picked out of the phone book, or really even purely on merit, and rarely even because they personally know the President who nominates them. They are nominated
307:
lawyer or state judge (say like a state
Supreme Court justice) then you can easily find additional information from their bios within law firms and/or courts. I've done numerous nominee articles in the past and this is the first I've ever had this issue come up.
686:, or their nominations will fail, in which case the reason for failure/coverage surrounding the failure will almost certainly render them notable. In this particular case, I think there is enough coverage here to pass the general notability threshold, see
170:
528:
failed nominees? I don't know. I would suggest, however, that there has to be more to this subject's biography than what is currently in the article, to explain exactly how he came to be a federal judicial nominee.
501:
450:
570:
because they have some connection to their
Senator, or someone of equivalent pull within their state. It is sometimes possible to find reporting indicating, e.g., who recommended the nominee to the President.
505:
representing a consensus of
Knowledge (XXG) editors of of that Wikiproject. (Although I commend them for trying; it's a good start, but trying to get a consensus on these types of issues is like
691:
687:
414:
222:
164:
682:
pending federal judicial nominees, so we're not talking about very many articles. These nominees will either go on to be confirmed, in which case they are certainly notable under
471:
But even said clause assumes they will be confirmed, thus, implying notability. "Nominees whose nomination has not yet come to a vote are not inherently notable. In practice,
123:
361:
That's a short bio, which doesn't mention basic biographical facts (date/place of birth, etc). As an aside, since POTUS nominated the man, it can hardly be argued this is
96:
91:
344:
241:
130:
100:
83:
323:"A. Marvin Quattlebaum, Jr., of South Carolina, to be United States District Judge for the District of South Carolina, vice Cameron M. Currie, retired."
475:. At worst, the article just needs a (ref improve) tag, in which more sources will be added once additional research is done independently.
185:
152:
652:
sources". There is no indication whatsoever that this president's judicial nominees represent anything other than politics as usual.
17:
662:
580:
539:
87:
55:
146:
707:
679:
643:
610:
564:
518:
484:
466:
444:
423:
393:
378:
356:
338:
316:
294:
273:
252:
233:
214:
65:
278:
653:
571:
530:
726:
630:
sources - random persons on the
Internet, the phone book, Twitter - who knows? Even if this person were not confirmed,
626:
process, do in fact vet
Federal judicial nominees. This president almost certainly does pick his some of nominees from
40:
142:
345:"President Donald J. Trump Announces Sixth Wave of Judicial Candidates and Fifth Wave of U.S. Attorney Candidates"
325:, which IMHO does not qualify as such. Can you provide a link? What about the "significant coverage" required by
192:
79:
71:
619:
683:
622:. Judges at the USDC level almost always have had significant legal careers already. Senators, through the
703:
631:
560:
480:
389:
352:
312:
269:
722:
473:
most such nominees will be confirmed by the Senate, at which point their notability will become inherent
419:
36:
158:
205:. Unsure if being nominated as district judge is a credible claim of notability (i.e. may be CSD-A7).
454:
178:
695:
623:
61:
699:
639:
556:
476:
462:
385:
374:
348:
334:
308:
290:
265:
246:
227:
210:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
721:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
606:
440:
264:
deleted, when all nominees (and potential judges) have an article. How is that not notable?
497:
449:
Ummm... "Nominees whose nomination has not yet come to a vote are not inherently notable."
366:
326:
282:
202:
678:
creating articles prior to confirmation. For an idea of scope, there are currently just
514:
635:
506:
458:
370:
330:
301:
286:
206:
117:
601:, district court judges pass Knowledge (XXG) notability and coverage guidelines.
602:
549:
436:
453:. Admittedly there's an "in practice" clause following that, but that's still
363:"significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"
598:
510:
648:
Re: "This president almost certainly does pick his some of nominees from
343:
This is the link I'm referring to: It was made available earlier today:
502:
Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject United States courts and judges/Notability
451:
Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject United States courts and judges/Notability
285:
after finding only passing mentions. Are nominees exempt from that?
555:
release after the nomination. If I'm misinterpreting, I apologize.
715:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
694:, for example. Per those sources, he is a past president of the
113:
109:
105:
177:
321:
I missed the short bio, apparantly, unless you mean
415:
223:
list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions
191:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
729:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
413:Note: This debate has been included in the
240:Note: This debate has been included in the
221:Note: This debate has been included in the
412:
239:
220:
242:list of Law-related deletion discussions
632:he would meet my standards for jurists
509:; and I say that as one of the cats.)
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
384:how or why that would change now.
24:
620:very long standing precedent here
347:; he's the sixth nominee listed.
1:
708:18:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
544:00:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
66:02:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
746:
667:13:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
644:13:09, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
611:04:06, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
585:04:08, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
565:04:02, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
519:22:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
485:22:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
467:21:55, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
445:21:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
424:18:47, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
394:20:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
379:20:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
357:19:59, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
339:19:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
317:19:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
295:18:35, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
274:18:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
253:18:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
234:18:25, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
215:18:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
80:A. Marvin Quattlebaum Jr.
72:A. Marvin Quattlebaum Jr.
718:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
597:per points made by
281:, I merely applied
279:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
696:South Carolina Bar
624:advise and consent
426:
255:
236:
59:
56:non-admin closure
737:
720:
660:
578:
553:
537:
500:. I acknowledge
422:
305:
251:
232:
196:
195:
181:
133:
121:
103:
53:
34:
745:
744:
740:
739:
738:
736:
735:
734:
733:
727:deletion review
716:
654:
572:
547:
531:
418:
299:
245:
226:
138:
129:
94:
78:
75:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
743:
741:
732:
731:
711:
710:
671:
670:
669:
668:
613:
592:
591:
590:
589:
588:
587:
586:
491:
490:
489:
488:
487:
428:
427:
409:
408:
407:
406:
405:
404:
403:
402:
401:
400:
399:
398:
397:
396:
257:
256:
237:
199:
198:
135:
74:
69:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
742:
730:
728:
724:
719:
713:
712:
709:
705:
701:
697:
693:
689:
685:
684:WP:POLITICIAN
681:
676:
673:
672:
666:
665:
661:
659:
658:
651:
647:
646:
645:
641:
637:
633:
629:
625:
621:
617:
614:
612:
608:
604:
600:
596:
593:
584:
583:
579:
577:
576:
568:
567:
566:
562:
558:
551:
546:
545:
543:
542:
538:
536:
535:
527:
522:
521:
520:
516:
512:
508:
503:
499:
495:
492:
486:
482:
478:
474:
470:
469:
468:
464:
460:
456:
452:
448:
447:
446:
442:
438:
433:
430:
429:
425:
421:
420:North America
416:
411:
410:
395:
391:
387:
382:
381:
380:
376:
372:
368:
364:
360:
359:
358:
354:
350:
346:
342:
341:
340:
336:
332:
328:
324:
320:
319:
318:
314:
310:
303:
298:
297:
296:
292:
288:
284:
280:
277:
276:
275:
271:
267:
262:
259:
258:
254:
250:
249:
243:
238:
235:
231:
230:
224:
219:
218:
217:
216:
212:
208:
204:
194:
190:
187:
184:
180:
176:
172:
169:
166:
163:
160:
157:
154:
151:
148:
144:
141:
140:Find sources:
136:
132:
128:
125:
119:
115:
111:
107:
102:
98:
93:
89:
85:
81:
77:
76:
73:
70:
68:
67:
64:
63:
62:GeoffreyT2000
57:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
717:
714:
700:Marquardtika
674:
663:
656:
655:
649:
627:
615:
594:
581:
574:
573:
557:Snickers2686
540:
533:
532:
525:
507:herding cats
493:
477:Snickers2686
472:
431:
386:Snickers2686
362:
349:Snickers2686
322:
309:Snickers2686
266:Snickers2686
260:
248:CAPTAIN RAJU
247:
229:CAPTAIN RAJU
228:
200:
188:
182:
174:
167:
161:
155:
149:
139:
126:
60:
49:
47:
31:
28:
369:calls for.
165:free images
650:unorthodox
628:unorthodox
455:WP:TOOSOON
723:talk page
37:talk page
725:or in a
124:View log
39:or in a
636:Bearian
459:Kleuske
371:Kleuske
331:Kleuske
302:Kleuske
287:Kleuske
207:Kleuske
171:WP refs
159:scholar
97:protect
92:history
657:bd2412
603:Zbase4
575:bd2412
550:BD2412
534:bd2412
498:WP:GNG
437:Safiel
367:WP:GNG
365:which
327:WP:GNG
283:WP:GNG
203:WP:GNG
201:Fails
143:Google
101:delete
186:JSTOR
147:books
131:Stats
118:views
110:watch
106:links
16:<
704:talk
692:this
690:and
688:this
675:Keep
640:talk
618:per
616:Keep
607:talk
599:TJRC
595:Keep
561:talk
526:past
515:talk
511:TJRC
494:Keep
481:talk
463:talk
441:talk
432:Keep
390:talk
375:talk
353:talk
335:talk
313:talk
291:talk
270:talk
261:Keep
211:talk
179:FENS
153:news
114:logs
88:talk
84:edit
50:keep
193:TWL
122:– (
52:.
706:)
698:.
680:31
642:)
634:.
609:)
563:)
517:)
483:)
465:)
457:.
443:)
417:.
392:)
377:)
355:)
337:)
329:?
315:)
293:)
272:)
244:.
225:.
213:)
173:)
116:|
112:|
108:|
104:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
702:(
664:T
638:(
605:(
582:T
559:(
552::
548:@
541:T
513:(
479:(
461:(
439:(
388:(
373:(
351:(
333:(
311:(
304::
300:@
289:(
268:(
209:(
197:)
189:·
183:·
175:·
168:·
162:·
156:·
150:·
145:(
137:(
134:)
127:·
120:)
82:(
58:)
54:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.