Karoline Mehalchick: 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) [ reply ] I think you make a very good point.  This information can help historians as well in the future.  I good example is with what you mentioned with Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies .  Starlighsky ( talk ) 23:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ 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 ) 14:29, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Law ,  and Pennsylvania . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:58, 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 ) 20:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Deleting Federal judicial nominees makes no sense.  There is widespread interest in the Federal judiciary because it affects so many lives with its rulings.  A large number of people are interested in this topic and removing this page and others like it needlessly alienate them and benefit no one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:CC4:20F0:6475:DA5A:C113:E6F4 ( talk ) 23:46, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Possible WP:ATD is draftification until she is officially confirmed, as usual. Curbon7 ( talk ) 05:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But the "as usual" thing to do is let the nominees page remain & not move it to draftification. President Biden has nominated 176 federal judicial nominees. Four of them have been withdrawn yet out of 176, only two had their pages taken down. One was Jorge Rodriguez who was no longer a nominee because the judge he was nominated to replace withdrew their senior status. The other was Tiffany Cartwright who I still to this day do not understand why her page was moved to Draft. But even in her case she has not been confirmed yet & her page has been reinstated. President Trump nominated more then 230 judges & all of them kept their page from the time of nomination. Moving or deleting a federal judicial nominee's page is literally the opposite of "as usual" respectively. MIAJudges ( talk ) 06:55, 30 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 ) 15:06, 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 ) 20:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Coverage in independent sources over the years establishes notability.-- Ipigott ( talk ) 08:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete It is a WP:BLP which needs real WP:SECONDARY coverage.  The article on the first block of references anyway, are at best WP:PRIMARY .  They are mostly profiles, self-written profiles that don't satisfy any kind of criteria to prove notability.  The second block they're is nothing there to prove notability.  From the WP:BLP policy it states Wikipedia must get the article right.  Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources .  They are completly missing from this article.  The fact that they are missing is another indication that the subject has done nothing of note.  scope_creep Talk 16:14, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Per, earlier commenters, the significant news coverage of her legal career by independent, high-quality sources over the years clearly establishes her notability.  (The Scranton newspapers cited are not only metropolitan newspapers that cover a major metropolitan area in Pennsylvania, they have a significant readership across the NEPA/northeastern Pennsylvania region, and produce stories that are frequently syndicated and/or used as source materials by major national news outlets.  Mehalchick has been regularly reported on since at least 2006 when Pennsylvania's state bar association named her as its "best young lawyer" of the year.  In addition, the position for which she has been nominated by the President of the United States will have the potential power to significantly impact a majority of Pennsylvania residents.  According to Ballotpedia's profile of Mehalchick , "The geographic jurisdiction of the Middle District of Pennsylvania consists of approximately one-half of Pennsylvania," which is the fifth-largest state in the United States.  - 47thPennVols ( talk ) 22:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Assuming she will be confirmed though is WP:CRYSTAL .  All coverage of her has been either local or puff pieces.  Let'srun ( talk ) 02:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep She is a presidential nominee, with a professorship in her resume.  Like the other 2023 presidential judicial nominees Hill and McMillion, she is a women with science background which may  assist historians in their analysis President Biden.  I want to add that in terms of her adjunct professorship, Wiikipedia: Notability for Academic Professionals should likely be a part of the notability: "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources."  Starlighsky ( talk ) 13:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC) Starlighsky [ reply ] Keep ; currently satisfies GNG with the local news profile and other sources.  I seult Δx parlez moi 14:13, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep quite obviously passes GNG.  Beyond My Ken ( talk ) 04:08, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - satisfies GNG.  -- Rosiestep ( talk ) 06:32, 4 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: keep