Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramon Reyes

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 keep‎. I'm closing this bundled nomination as Keep. You can seek draftification on individual articles as you see fit. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ramon Reyes[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. Per the WP:USCJN section on U.S. District Court judges, "Nominees whose nomination has not yet come to a vote are not inherently notable. In practice, most such nominees will be confirmed by the Senate, at which point their notability will become inherent" Let'srun (talk) 02:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because [all do not meet notability under WP:NPOL and is WP:TOOSOON since nominees have not been confirmed as a federal district court judge to date. Per the WP:USCJN section on U.S. District Court judges, "Nominees whose nomination has not yet come to a vote are not inherently notable. In practice, most such nominees will be confirmed by the Senate, at which point their notability will become inherent" ]:[reply]

Pinging BD2412, Novemberjazz, care to weigh in? There are others that have been separately nominated as well. Snickers2686 (talk) 02:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So here's my question then, if it's "too soon" then are we supposed to wait to create an article until after a nominee is confirmed? Thereby waiting months, maybe years to do so? That seems really counterintuitive to me. Snickers2686 (talk) 02:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! Assuming these nominees will be confirmed is WP:CRYSTAL. Let'srun (talk) 18:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jeffrey Cummings; move to draft as to the rest. These articles raise an interesting conundrum. If these nominations are confirmed, as the substantial majority of federal judicial nominations eventually are, then notability will be automatic. If the unlikely event that any of these nominations are rejected in a Senate vote, that in itself would be a point in favor of the notability of the subjects. If these linger until the end of the administration and are never acted on, I don't think they confer notability thereby, but would be some evidence of notability in combination with other information on the subjects that might be found. Among these subjects, there is some coverage of notable rulings made by Cummings as a magistrate, and I think that one can likely stand as an article as is. The rest can be moved to draft for further research and/or developments. BD2412 T 03:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, California, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:09, 30 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) 20:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per Tiffany Cartwright precedent, the articles can be moved to the mainspace until when they are actually confirmed. Let'srun (talk) 22:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Cartwright's page has already been moved back & she has not been confirmed yet. So if you're using that precedent, feel free to remove your deletion request. Thanks

MIAJudges (talk) 00:42, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That article was moved unilaterally by one user in contradiction to both the AfD and a corresponding deletion review. Curbon7 (talk) 06:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While I think all of these individuals meet GNG, I do think that it might be worth reviewing the policy separately.--Mpen320 (talk) 04:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - meets GNG, and note that all of these judges have not been confirmed due to a hold put on them by a Senator in reaction to Trump's indictment. That is a political move, and should not be a factor in determining Wiki-notability. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:21, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is my vote as a bundled nomination. Individually they could be assesed and best option would probably be Draftify for those that don't pass GNG before confirmation. WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:51, 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.