Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Bernard Day (2nd nomination)

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Bernard Day

AfDs for this article:

[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)

Fails WP:JUDGE as per WP:USCJN magistrate judges are not inherently notable and I fail to see how this article crosses that line Let'srun (talk) 21:37, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I haven't done a source check, but WP:USJUDGE does advise Nominees whose nomination is rejected by the United States Senate are not inherently notable; however, as the rejection of a nominee to such a position is a rare and politically important event, this is strong evidence of notability that can be established by any other indicia of notability here.

TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Alabama, and Maryland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A magistrate judge who was nominated for a federal judgeship more than likely confers notability. Snickers2686 (talk) 03:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How, besides your personal opinion? Let'srun (talk) 22:04, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep, given the unusual circumstances of the Senators from this state commenting on the failure of this nomination. BD2412 T 03:56, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that normal for failed nominees? See Michael Delaney [1]. I'd argue that notability stemming from failure to be confirmed must be evaluated from coverage of the failure itself (n.b. Arianna Freeman). Home-state senators commenting on failed nominees is to be expected; they'd provided blue slips and have a vested interest in seeing someone from their state confirmed. That's WP:ROUTINE. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 06:57, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether it is to be "expected"; it is something I have rarely actually seen. BD2412 T 16:17, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is typically the case indeed, since district court judges are recommended in the first place by the home state senators. Thus, it is WP:ROUTINE and doesn't meet any other notability criteria. Let'srun (talk) 22:02, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nom's POV has caused them to misjudge GNG with regard to this subject. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:11, 3 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.