Brandy R. McMillion: Let'srun ( talk ) 12:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] these pages are regularly created on the announcement of the nomination by the WH.  prior to 6/28/23 there were already 22 district court nominees with existing pages.  even if a nominee is not confirmed not confirmed, their failed nomination is still notable and these pages are maintained Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies FedCourts20 ( talk ) 13:32, 29 June 2023 (UTC) — FedCourts20 ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  [ reply ] Delete Agree with Nominator according to WP:NPOL if this individual doesn't meet the WP:GNG they shouldn't be included.  I don't see how they meet General Notability.  As for "Prior to 6/28/2023 there were already 22 district court nominees..." this is an example of other things exist which is not an argument for keeping the article. -- VViking Talk Edits 13:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:Some stuff exists for a reason Snickers2686 ( talk ) 14:30, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "This essay is not a standard reply that can be hurled against anyone you disagree with who has made a reference to how something is done somewhere else."  Let'srun ( talk ) 19:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What "reference" did you make that you're referring to?  Snickers2686 ( talk ) 19:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Law ,  and Michigan .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Nominees for lifetime appointments to the federal bench & announced on the White House official home page are notable for that reason alone.  Most nominees have numerous other reasons they are notable without the announcement, otherwise they wouldn't make it to that point.  Even if the nomination fails it receives numerous headlines & therefore the person is still notable.  MIAJudges ( talk ) 20:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 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 ) 02:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 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 ) 20:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : She is an engineer by training with a Masters Degree in Industrial and Operation management who has had published commentary on a key issue in patent law, plus she has made great efforts with her Pro Bono work to help others...that with her presidential nomination should make her noteworthy a legal professional.  This Assistant United States Attorney and fellow presidential nominee Judge Jennifer L. Hall are both women who have advance degrees in engineering or science, a masters in Industrial Engineering and a Ph.D in Biochemistry, respectively.  Both have published statements in patent law either as having written an article or a court judgement, respectively.  Their nominations by the president give insight for historians on how the president in deciding on judge candidates.
 EDIT of Edit: I noticed the comments below so I want to add Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians and judges Politicians and judges who have held...sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature She is a an assistant US Attorney for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, so this should apply.  I do want to add that she is with a degree in industrial engineering who was contributed to intellectual property law scholarship, albeit in a small way.  All in all, it is a uniqueness for an assistance US attorney.  Starlighsky ( talk ) Delete: The Keep rationales presented above are totally devoid of any connection to actual notability criteria, and I hope and trust the closing admin ignores them entirely; we do not get to make up fictional notability guidelines to cover the truth that we've nothing better to proffer.   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.  Ravenswing 06:12, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I just want to say that I saw your comment and added notability criteria in my post above.  Starlighsky ( talk ) 21:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, no.   You didn't.   You added a quote from the now-defunct Encarta , mentioned in the lead of WP:BIO.   The actual, explicit criterion for WP:JUDGE is "Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels."  You will note, as I assume the closing admin will, that having an engineering or a science degree is not listed.   You will also note that having a law degree is not listed.   You will further note that having published statements in patent law is not listed, and I assure you that there are hundreds and thousands of patent law attorneys that can claim that much.   The applicable notability criterion that McMillion would need to meet is having been a judge at the statewide level or higher.   As it happens, McMillion is not, and has never been, a judge.  I stand on my statement above: that you need to advocate based on the notability criteria in place, not on what you wish the criteria would read if you were the one making the rules.   I recognize that you are new on Wikipedia, and invite you to better inform yourself on notability policy and guidelines.  Ravenswing 22:19, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I learned from my mistake corrected the use of the word "judge" with "Assistant United States Attorney" Starlighsky ( talk ) 22:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I corrected the applicable notability as well.  Starlighsky ( talk ) 23:33, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Fair enough, but appointed officials do not qualify under WP:POLITICIAN either.   They haven't held elective office.  Ravenswing 02:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Starlighsky : There are literally thousands of AUSA's across the country.  Being one doesn't confer notability.  Let'srun ( talk ) 11:09, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I wrote on Talk about her having cowritten a piece about a really important issue in patent law.  I had added the article earlier, but it was deleted.  It is a published work.  However, it seems have few citations by other authors.  That might have been why is was deleted.  The article and the Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians and judges would seem like a combination for a Keep.  Starlighsky ( talk ) 16:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete ; agree with Ravenswing in full.  If curious about why the other votes exist, the closing admin should see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#AFD_and_judges_appointed_by_Joe_Biden .  I seult Δx parlez moi 14:11, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - The current sourcing is far from reaching WP:GNG , with at most one ref being of the depth, quality and independence we'd expect.  WP:NJUDGE , the relevant WP:SNG , is most definitely not reached.  I'd also like to "+1" Ravenswing above re: the keep ! votes' basis in policy, or rather lack of.  And even if NJUDGE was reached, without a GNG pass this would still fall under WP:BIOSPECIAL .  - Ljleppan ( talk ) 20:21, 1 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.

Discussion outcome: delete