Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of federal judges appointed by Donald Trump

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 speedy close. Creator has voluntarily moved the page back to draft, rendering this discussion moot. Primefac (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of federal judges appointed by Donald Trump

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

A single entry does not make a list — WP:Crystalball, should be moved back to draft-space Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 12:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per tradition. Calibrador (talk) 12:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Calibrador — please elaborate. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 12:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can we put a blanket snow close on all Trump-related nominations? At this point it is clear that a lot of these are purely out of user's dislike of a president. This is blatant disregard of the precedent and therefore pure personal spite.Nergaal (talk) 12:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, we can't. This request has nothing to do with dislike — and political position is actually irrelevant. The request is very simple: one entry does not make a list, return it to draft space per policy until you have more than one entry. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 12:48, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kick to draft - this article is about people appointed by Trump. There are currently zero people on that list. There is no reason we have to have this right this very second. Kick it to draft, let the tables be actually populated, and then move it to the Article space. Primefac (talk) 13:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Draft – WP:TOOSOON — JFG ^talk 14:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He's nominated one judge and he's clearly going to nominate more barring very unlikely events. Would be pointless to move back to draft. Orser67 (talk) 15:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment **** it. People obviously going to be anally retentive about this, so I have moved it back to draft. Safiel (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2017 (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.