- 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 merge to Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies. This is numerically 50/50 between keep and merge, however all of the keep votes cited WP:NPOL, which was proven not applicable. With that and failing WP:GNG, the merge argument carries. (non-admin closure) CLYDE TALK TO ME/ STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 18:30, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Tovah R. Calderon
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Tovah R. Calderon ( | 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)
Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Sources are either primary or namedrops Let'srun ( talk) 15:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, Indiana, and Washington, D.C.. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:NPOL Snickers2686 ( talk) 16:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per Snickers2686 Andre 🚐 03:11, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- Keep For the same reasons mentioned by Snickers2686. MIAJudges ( talk) 02:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: Which role is WP:NPOL based on? If it is the DC Court of Appeals, my understanding is that this is not a state or federal office, and her nomination was unsuccessful. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:21, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Delete:as failing the GNG. I'm not sure what the Keep proponents are thinking, but WP:NPOL holds the following: "Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels. This also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them." Since the subject has never been a judge or held elective office, NPOL doesn't remotely apply. They could with as much justification claim that the article should be kept per WP:GEOLAND or WP:NHOCKEY.No objection to merge as per Let'srun. Ravenswing 13:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
- Alternative proposal: Merge all otherwise non-notable failed presidential judicial nominees into a single article along the lines of
Unsuccessful Joe Biden judicial nominations. We can preserve a truncated form of the data in one place, without reaching individual notability concerns.
BD2412
T
21:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
- I think a redirect to
Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies makes more sense, seeing as there is already a description of the
WP:BLP1E for this nominee and the other non-notable failed presidential judicial nominees, along with details about specific dates regarding the nomination process. As it is, the list of otherwise non-notable judicial nominees for Trump is fairly small and I don't think there is the needed SIGCOV.
Let'srun (
talk)
15:19, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- Correction, there is not a description of this specific nominee there. In this case, merging the information there would be wise in an effort to retain details regarding why the nominee was not confirmed. Let'srun ( talk) 15:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- Why would a controversy list about federal nominees include D.C. court nominees?
Snickers2686 (
talk)
17:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- The name of the article is Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies, not Joe Biden federal judicial appointment controversies. A section can be simply added below the federal nominees with any applicable DC court nominees and the description of the WP:BLP1E. Let'srun ( talk) 19:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- I think a redirect to
Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies makes more sense, seeing as there is already a description of the
WP:BLP1E for this nominee and the other non-notable failed presidential judicial nominees, along with details about specific dates regarding the nomination process. As it is, the list of otherwise non-notable judicial nominees for Trump is fairly small and I don't think there is the needed SIGCOV.
Let'srun (
talk)
15:19, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- Merge to Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies, as per the proposal from Let'srun. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:14, 18 July 2023 (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.
- 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 merge to Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies. This is numerically 50/50 between keep and merge, however all of the keep votes cited WP:NPOL, which was proven not applicable. With that and failing WP:GNG, the merge argument carries. (non-admin closure) CLYDE TALK TO ME/ STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 18:30, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Tovah R. Calderon
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Tovah R. Calderon ( | 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)
Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Sources are either primary or namedrops Let'srun ( talk) 15:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, Indiana, and Washington, D.C.. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:NPOL Snickers2686 ( talk) 16:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per Snickers2686 Andre 🚐 03:11, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- Keep For the same reasons mentioned by Snickers2686. MIAJudges ( talk) 02:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: Which role is WP:NPOL based on? If it is the DC Court of Appeals, my understanding is that this is not a state or federal office, and her nomination was unsuccessful. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:21, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Delete:as failing the GNG. I'm not sure what the Keep proponents are thinking, but WP:NPOL holds the following: "Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels. This also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them." Since the subject has never been a judge or held elective office, NPOL doesn't remotely apply. They could with as much justification claim that the article should be kept per WP:GEOLAND or WP:NHOCKEY.No objection to merge as per Let'srun. Ravenswing 13:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
- Alternative proposal: Merge all otherwise non-notable failed presidential judicial nominees into a single article along the lines of
Unsuccessful Joe Biden judicial nominations. We can preserve a truncated form of the data in one place, without reaching individual notability concerns.
BD2412
T
21:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
- I think a redirect to
Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies makes more sense, seeing as there is already a description of the
WP:BLP1E for this nominee and the other non-notable failed presidential judicial nominees, along with details about specific dates regarding the nomination process. As it is, the list of otherwise non-notable judicial nominees for Trump is fairly small and I don't think there is the needed SIGCOV.
Let'srun (
talk)
15:19, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- Correction, there is not a description of this specific nominee there. In this case, merging the information there would be wise in an effort to retain details regarding why the nominee was not confirmed. Let'srun ( talk) 15:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- Why would a controversy list about federal nominees include D.C. court nominees?
Snickers2686 (
talk)
17:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- The name of the article is Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies, not Joe Biden federal judicial appointment controversies. A section can be simply added below the federal nominees with any applicable DC court nominees and the description of the WP:BLP1E. Let'srun ( talk) 19:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- I think a redirect to
Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies makes more sense, seeing as there is already a description of the
WP:BLP1E for this nominee and the other non-notable failed presidential judicial nominees, along with details about specific dates regarding the nomination process. As it is, the list of otherwise non-notable judicial nominees for Trump is fairly small and I don't think there is the needed SIGCOV.
Let'srun (
talk)
15:19, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- Merge to Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies, as per the proposal from Let'srun. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:14, 18 July 2023 (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.