Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathleen Marie Sweet

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. There is a general sentiment that separate nominations may be more productive. ✗plicit 14:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen Marie Sweet

[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:NPOL with little in the way of secondary sources. Per the WP:USCJN section on U.S. District Court judges, "Nominees who withdraw, die, are withdrawn by the President prior to a vote on the nomination, or are returned by the United States Senate without being processed are not inherently notable. If a withdrawal from consideration is prompted by conflict over the nomination, which makes it tantamount to a defeat in the Senate, such a nominee is evaluated as though they had been rejected by the Senate." Let'srun (talk) 13:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because [they each fail WP:USCJN and WP:NPOL as previously described]:[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 14:08, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California, Georgia (U.S. state), Kansas, Massachusetts, North Dakota, and Washington. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:19, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Steve Kim, per BD2412: That this subject was unsuccessfully nominated for a District Court judgeship likely lifts their notability over the threshold for inclusion. Frankly, if a state court judge or magistrate has been nominated, how does that not confer notability? Snickers2686 (talk) 03:22, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as collectively nominated. I have some individual issues with some of these. One was (unsuccessfully) nominated to a U.S. Court of Appeals rather than a district court, which raises the stakes higher. One was nominated multiple times by the same president, with the nomination resubmitted after failing the first time. I would consider these nominations to be separate events for purposes of gauging notability. Another was nominated by one president and then declared, but not submitted, as a nominee by the next president, which is also a highly unusual and noteworthy circumstance. BD2412 T 04:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above, and per the nom's clearly political motivation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:24, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How is it political when the nominations were nominees from both Republican and Democratic presidents? Let'srun (talk) 11:59, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite curious @Beyond My Ken Let'srun (talk) 12:12, 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.