Julia K. Munley: Let'srun ( talk ) 19:13, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Law ,  and Pennsylvania .  Shellwood ( talk ) 21:17, 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 ) 07:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As you know, there is in fact no notability criterion granting presumptive notability to a nominee to the bench, nor to someone mentioned on the White House website.  Whether or not the subject is destined to receive "numerous headlines," the fact is that as of yet, she has not.  Ravenswing 06:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am not understanding how the president of the United States nominating somebody to a lifetime appointment to a co-equal branch of the government & including a bio of them in the announcement not enough to make a person notable.  The nominee is covered by numerous media outlets across the country once the announcement is made.  MIAJudges ( talk ) 06:14, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Then let me explain it to you.   On Wikipedia, notability is determined through meeting one or more of several notability guidelines: in this case, for instance, by meeting WP:GNG , WP:SIGCOV or WP:POLITICIAN .   SIGCOV is the key here: it is not sufficient for a source (however reliable) to say "President Biden sent Soandso's name to the Senate for nomination."  SIGCOV goes into some detail about what's needed, but the gist is that a source needs to discuss the subject -- not the nominating process, not President Biden, not the Senate Judiciary Committee, the subject -- in "significant detail," so that an article could be credibly made from that source alone.  And that is it.  I've told you a couple of times over that there are no other pertinent, explicit criteria.   I have challenged you a couple times over to demonstrate that there is pertinent, explicit criteria such as you describe.   We do not make determinations based on what you think should be in the criteria were you the one making the rules here.   We make them based on the notability criteria already in place.   Period.  Ravenswing 10:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per WP:JUDGE and appears to meet GNG.  –– Formal Dude (talk) 08:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Striking my ! vote, I misunderstood the subject.  –– Formal Dude (talk) 23:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: There are no 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; what we have here are primary sources and namedrops.   Nor does the subject meet WP:JUDGE, as FormalDude asserts; the minimum bar for WP:JUDGE is serving in a statewide court.   The subject's highest judiciary post is in a local county court.  Ravenswing 06:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I don't see how this might conceivably pass WP:JUDGE .  Also, doesn't pass WP:GNG through SIGCOV, as per Ravenswing.  I seult Δx parlez moi 13:58, 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