This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
I have requested on two previous occasions, along with multiple other users for this page to be reverted back to a regular Wikipedia page from a DRAFT. There are numerous reasons why this should occur. This is a nominee by the president of the USA for a lifetime appointment to the federal judiciary. Every single other pending nominee by the president has a Wikipedia page. Tiffany M. Cartwright has already been voted on & approved by the senate judiciary committee. She is currently in queue for a confirmation vote. There are other Wikipedia pages for nominees to the federal judiciary from past president's that never received a vote. In addition, I tried to add three articles from The Associated Press including Tiffany M. Cartwright as the winning attorney for multiple civil rights cases. I am not sure what the agenda is from those who requested this page be moved to DRAFT, but this is the only person in her category that this has ever been done to. I am requesting this page be moved back.
MIAJudges (talk) 05:35, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even though other stuff exists, the Administrator's decision for the AfD for the Cartwright article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiffany M. Cartwright was Draftify. Comments at the AfD and Teahouse were to keep this at Draft until the Senate confirmation process is completed and she is a federal judge. At that time, text and a ref should be added to verify her appoitnment. David notMD (talk) 12:41, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have no agenda as you have been told in multiple times and locations. When Cartwright is appointed, she can be moved back. Asking the same question in multiple places is not going to get a different answer. If you think my close was wrong, you're welcome to take it to Deletion Review but with pointers to multiple times you've asked, it's unlikely you're going to get the outcome you're after until the process is finalized. StarMississippi 13:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a Wikipedia policy sophisticate, but this article is a glaring outlier in the Wikipedia coverage of the federal judiciary. Nomination by the president to a federal judgeship is so obviously notable that the proposition should not need to be stated (hence why this issue has not arisen with literally hundreds of similar articles). This page appears to have been hijacked by an editor unfamiliar with federal judicial nominations and needs to be published. Iowalaw2 (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just so others know, this went through another round of review (unsuccessfully). Unfortunately, the original deletion occurred with little scrutiny, and once an article becomes trapped in the Wikipedia bureaucracy it's very hard to get it out (as we saw with the Theresa Greenfield disaster). I'm not sure what brought this article to the original abusive editor's attention--and he seems to have made this his personal vendetta, as he was incredibly nasty in the review--but luckily there have not been similar issues with other judiciary articles so far. Iowalaw2 (talk) 19:29, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to formally warn you @Iowalaw2 as I understand your frustration, but referring to editors as the original abusive editor is the fast track to an NPA block, so I suggest not continuing down that vein. StarMississippi 19:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given that editor's behavior since, I think it's fairly clear that they were not a good-faith contributor. But I certainly do not mean to accuse them of personal impropriety beyond that; their contributions speak for themselves. Iowalaw2 (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, you can absolutely say that their contributions are not in good faith. I'd just avoid critiquing them as an editor. Safer that way as I don't want to see you blocked/lose your contributions. StarMississippi 20:17, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why is she the only pending nominee on Draftify?[edit]
Hello! I have no dog in this fight, but why is Tiffany Cartwright the only person whom the President has nominated to an Article III position to (1) be on Draftify, and (2) have such an intense discussion about whether the article should be kept. There are literally dozens of other nominees awaiting hearing, discharge, cloture, or confirmation. Seems inconsistent. 12.217.222.128 (talk) 15:31, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! WP:OSE as you and other editors have been told in multiple locations. Feel free to nominate those other nominees' articles if you don't feel they meet notability standards since Cartwright doesn't. There are millions of articles, not all of which are patrolled. StarMississippi 15:47, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As others have stated, this is the only Article III judicial nominee without a Wikipedia page. It is nonsense like this that chased me off this platform as a contributor. The lack of consistency of standards would quite naturally lead one to believe that someone has an axe to grind against this particular nominee, to what end I couldn't say. This is the only time I can recall this so-called "standard" being applied to a federal judicial nominee over at least the past dozen years, which leads me to believe this is capricious in nature. Move this back to an active article. Valadius (talk) 00:17, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As Star Mississippi said above, feel free to nom the others if you feel its unfair. I would do it myself, but I don't feel like wasting my own time because an editor created a dozen articles far too early. Curbon7 (talk) 00:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. You're welcome to pursue deletion review if you think the close was incorrect. However, relying on your colleagues' incorrect understanding of notability when consensus was clear is not going to result in an overturn. Why not wait until she's confirmed? There is no deadline. StarMississippi 01:04, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's a double standard for sure but you can't get the powers-to-be to see it that way. Snickers2686 (talk) 00:59, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just because she's a nominee means she's not notable? Yet there are scores of other nominees articles that are created by autopatrolled users that no one has an issue with...Wikipedia is certainly showing double standards here. Snickers2686 (talk) 00:58, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't new, this is WP:NPOL being followed and upheld over several discussions in which the community participated. You're welcome to nominate the other nominees' articles for deletion if you believe they also don't meet the standards. WP:OSE is not necessarily binding on consensus. StarMississippi 01:07, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree. On one article compared to hundreds that were made for previous nominees, consensus obviously cuts the other way. You repeat the same reply over and over. Different standards for different editors, I get it. Snickers2686 (talk) 18:03, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This has been to Deletion Review where the discussion was upheld and there have been multiple other discussions. Feel free to start an RFC on NPOL if you feel that needs changing, but consensus is clear that Cartwright is not notable as currently defined. When and if she's confirmed, that may change. StarMississippi 18:15, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, different standards for different editors apparently Snickers2686 (talk) 23:01, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Consensus is clear" over the objections of literally every editor who regularly works on the judiciary and the editors who wrote and approved hundreds of similar articles... Even with respect to this specific article, there wasn't actually consensus in the original review, and the official finding was "no consensus" in the deletion review. This is just a lower-profile Theresa Greenfield case, with Distinguished Wikipedia Bureaucrats using Very Important and Non-Arbitrary Rules to justify a facially absurd objection. As I pointed out to User:CodeLyoko, this has entered a Catch-22--there's no way to add marginal "additional sourcing" to justify publication when an article has already been sourced to hell and back to no avail. Typically, they ignored my question. Iowalaw2 (talk) 16:39, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This individual is currently scheduled for a confirmation vote in the Senate to a lifetime appointment on the Federal District Court of Western Washington. It is a travesty that she is being denied a public page in Wikipedia. What short of a political motivation can explain such a bias? It's time to rectify this situation. Thank you. Randuwa1 173.66.46.9 (talk) 23:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no political motivation, just a lack of respect for how things are done. If and when she's confirmed, it will be moved into mainspace. StarMississippi 02:19, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's bizarre that her article was draftified, but she'll be confirmed soon enough and then we can move the article to main space and put this whole strange saga behind us. Marquardtika (talk) 14:43, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But be careful not to move it too soon (even that's already been done) because that's WP:CRYSTAL. I feel like some editors/admins pick and choose which "rules" to enforce. But apparently the way this article was handled is now "precedent"? I don't see how/why. Snickers2686 (talk) 03:39, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree too. It doesn't make any sense what has been done. There is a tremendous lack of consistency in having only this article in draft. First time I see something like this on wikipedia.--Elelch (talk) 22:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If only it was the only one--there are five or six now. I'm not sure how these articles came to the instigators' attention, but it's certainly unfortunate. Iowalaw2 (talk) 23:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's true, but that does not mean that there is no justification for applying different standards for the same situation. Rather it seems that what has been done in those other articles has been to give an appearance of justification to what has been done with this article..--Elelch (talk) 13:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Star Mississippi: the vote for Cartwright's confirmation is scheduled for tomorrow at 11:30 eastern; functionally, it should finish around 12. With that in mind, might we unsalt appropriate mainspace move targets? Iseult Δx parlez moi 01:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the delay @Iseult, I was offline for a few days. @Snickers2686 took care of the move (thank you). I'm happy to unSALT the one with the initial if folks think that's the better one, or just put the redirect in. I leave that for you, collectively, but happy to unSALT to allow the move if needed. StarMississippi 01:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Hameltion. I've redirected it. If folks think this should be the redirect and that the article, a discussion here should suffice. StarMississippi 00:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
