K. Gary Sebelius : .  "not inherently notable" and per consensus at WP:Articles for deletion/Margaret J. Schneider ; could be notable as a first gentleman of Kansas, but that's a stretch Snickers2686 ( talk ) 22:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Kansas .  Snickers2686 ( talk ) 22:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Bill Clinton judicial appointment controversies : Agree with the nom that this subject is not notable and does not meet either the WP:GNG or WP:JUDGE , however here as a failed judicial nominee we have a redirect target related to it as a WP:AFD , where he is already listed.  User:Let'srun 01:46, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  While magistrate judges are not inherently notable, Sebelius is, due to the combination of being a magistrate judge, having been First Gentleman and having been a failed federal district judge nominee.   No one of those items may confer inherent notability, but all three of those in concert should and do.  Jarvishunt ( talk ) 16:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What WP:SIGCOV has the subject received?  Just because he has all of those items to his name doesn't give notability on its own.  Let'srun ( talk ) 03:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I added some WP:SIGCOV -- two citations from The New York Times , no less -- during the Brown v. Board of Education litigation.   I'm certainly happy to add more -- there's absolutely other WP:SIGCOV as well, and we all can add it as part of a good faith effort to work to improve the article.   One problem is that some of the WP:SIGCOV that Gary Sebelius has received is in articles that currently are behind newspaper paywalls.  Jarvishunt ( talk ) 20:25, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep .  I'm inclined to agree with Jarvishunt to the extent that multiple almost-but-not-quite inherently notable features can come together to lead to someone being notable themselves.  Sebelius was the First Gentleman of a U.S. state (which comes with some notoriety/notability within that state), is the husband of a former U.S. cabinet official, is a magistrate judge, and was involved as a lawyer in the later stages of the famous Brown v. Board of Education case.  I don't think any of those features standing alone would confer notability, but put together, he seems to have a close relationship to many clearly notable individuals and events, which I think pushes him just over the line to notability.  SeenToBeDone ( talk ) 00:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Adding on to the above, looking up Gary Sibelius on newspaper archive, he has received a non-trivial amount of coverage.  Sungodtemple ( talk • contribs ) 02:48, 3 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: To review sourcing added by Jarvishunt and SeenToBeDone's submission around notability.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 01:48, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 10:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Despite the various roles and associations mentioned, K. Gary Sebelius does not meet the general notability guidelines (WP:GNG) as the coverage does not appear to be significant or in-depth.  The positions held, such as magistrate judge and First Gentleman of Kansas, do not inherently confer notability (WP:INHERITORG), and the failed federal district judge nomination, while notable, does not by itself satisfy the criteria for a standalone biographical article.  The subject's involvement in the Brown v. Board of Education litigation, although notable, is also not sufficient to establish notability without significant independent coverage (WP:SIGCOV).  A redirect to a related topic where he is already mentioned may be appropriate.  PD Slessor ( talk ) 11:35, 14 December 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: no consensus