Deletion of A. Marvin Quattlebaum Jr.

Comment: We typically have articles for all federal judicial nominees, and I don't see why this case should be any different. It may be jumping the gun a bit to create the pages prior to confirmation, but since the vast majority of federal judicial nominees go on to be confirmed, I don't see the harm in creating articles prior to confirmation. For an idea of scope, there are currently just http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/judicial-vacancies/current-judicial-vacancies 31 pending federal judicial nominees, so we're not talking about very many articles. These nominees will either go on to be confirmed, in which case they are certainly notable under , or their nominations will fail, in which case the reason for failure/coverage surrounding the failure will almost certainly render them notable. In this particular case, I think there is enough coverage here to pass the general notability threshold, see http://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/news/2017/08/04/president-donald-trump-nominates-quattlebaum-coggins-federal-judges-district-south-carolina/539464001/ this and http://www.postandcourier.com/politics/president-donald-trump-nominates-two-federal-judges-for-south-carolina/article_1fd569c4-78a8-11e7-96b6-ffe0f3813e5b.html this, for example. Per those sources, he is a past president of the South Carolina Bar
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:POLITICIAN)

Comment: per |very long standing precedent here. Judges at the USDC level almost always have had significant legal careers already. Senators, through the advise and consent process, do in fact vet Federal judicial nominees. This president almost certainly does pick his some of nominees from ''unorthodox'' sources - random persons on the Internet, the phone book, Twitter - who knows? Even if this person were not confirmed
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:POLOUTCOMES)

Comment: I believe that an Article III nominee is inherently notable. Being nominated by the President of the United States for one of the limited number (about 3000, counting appellate courts) of Article III lifetime positions is notable, end of story. Can anyone possibly imagine that any such nominee is not subject to immediate coverage in reliable sources? Even if not confirmed, the circumstances of the confirmation failure or withdrawal gets sufficient coverage to ensure . I acknowledge Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges/Notability says "Nominees whose nomination has not yet come to a vote are not inherently notable," but I disagree. Looking at the edit history to that page, it seems largely the work of a small number of editors thanklessly trying to corral and codify the Wikiproject's positions, but cannot be seen as actually representing a consensus of Wikipedia editors of of that Wikiproject. (Although I commend them for trying; it's a good start, but trying to get a consensus on these types of issues is like herding cats; and I say that as one of the cats
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)