Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brendan A. Hurson

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 Draftify‎. I participated in the ANI, but the consensus here is clear and I feel comfortable closing it without being "involved". Draftification preserves the history for interested editors to work on this until Hurson is confirmed. Star Mississippi 13:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan A. Hurson[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

does not meet notability under WP:NPOL and is WP:TOOSOON since nominee has not been confirmed as a federal district court judge Let'srun (talk) 12:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Law, and Maryland. Shellwood (talk) 12:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:Some stuff exists for a reason Snickers2686 (talk) 14:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: Until he is confirmed, as usual with these judicial nominations. Currently does not pass WP:GNG, and the anti-OSE argument makes no sense here. Curbon7 (talk) 15:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why? He's already been reported by committee, so it's only a matter of time before he's confirmed. We're going to draftify for a couple months just to move it back into mainspace? Snickers2686 (talk) 19:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming he will become a federal judge in a few months is WP:CRYSTAL. He could withdraw his name from consideration, which has happened before, or his nomination could fail in the Senate. Besides that, I was unable to find any WP:SIGCOV at the moment to justify a pass via WP:GNG instead. Curbon7 (talk) 21:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The WP:USCJN section on U.S. District Court judges directive states a nomination doesn't mean they are inherently notable but that does not mean the nominees aren't notable. A person is never nominated to an equal branch of government for a lifetime appointment by the leader of the executive branch without having a lengthy career & background. All of the nominees have references to their careers in the press. The president's own announcement details each of their bios. MIAJudges (talk) 00:53, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: The Keep rationales presented above totally devoid of any connection to actual notability criteria. Looking over the article, what I see lacking are independent, third-party, reliable sources that give the subject the "significant coverage" in multiple sources that the GNG requires in order to meet notability standards. He's namedropped, there are press releases, but those do not constitute qualifying coverage. Ravenswing 06:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He is a former federal defender with multiple notable cases which are listed. He had his bio included in the announcement from the president which is referenced. He had a hearing in front of the senate judiciary committee & they have voted him favorably to the senate floor. He has been mentioned by numerous media outlets which makes him notable. Tiffany Cartwright’s page was taken down & has been reinstated & she is in the same position as he is, pending a senate vote but hasn’t been confirmed yet. There is no precedent in Wikipedia for moving ir deleting his page.

MIAJudges (talk) 06:11, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Except the previous AfDs on unconfirmed federal judges (for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiffany M. Cartwright). Curbon7 (talk) 06:12, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(1) The Cartwright article has been draftified, not "reinstated." And I have asked you before what your evidence is that there is no precedent on Wikipedia for this, and you have declined to answer. (2) There is no presumption of notability on Wikipedia for federal defenders, former or otherwise. (3) WP:NOTINHERITED explicitly states that a subject is not notable just because it is connected to something that is. (4) There is no presumption of notability for having had a hearing before a Senate committee. (5) SIGCOV requires not merely being namedropped in media sources, but that the subject receive coverage in "significant detail," sufficient to write an article on the subject from that source alone. (6) These things have been pointed out to you already, and with the longevity you claim on Wikipedia, there is no reason for you to be ignorant of them. Ravenswing 18:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify until confirmed; does not pass WP:GNG as is. If improved, I'm more than happy to change to keep. Precedent doesn't matter. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 13:56, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify until confirmed, or could pass WP:GNG. --Enos733 (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify until confirmed per Curbon7, Ravenswing, and others. Sal2100 (talk) 20:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as WP:TOOSOON without passing GNG, no rush to create now and can still be improved in draftspace. WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:59, 6 July 2023 (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.