Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A. Marvin Quattlebaum Jr.


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 02:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

A. Marvin Quattlebaum Jr.

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG. Unsure if being nominated as district judge is a credible claim of notability (i.e. may be CSD-A7). Kleuske (talk) 18:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:25, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep All federal judicial nominees have an article pretaining to their nomination, regardless of the outcome of said nomination. All federal judges have information regarding their nomination process and both biographical and legal background information. So I'm at a loss as to why this article should be deleted, when all nominees (and potential judges) have an article. How is that not notable? Snickers2686 (talk) 18:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I merely applied WP:GNG after finding only passing mentions. Are nominees exempt from that? Kleuske (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I would think so because a short bio comes out on the White House website, so that gives content for an article. Plus, once their nomination is received in committee, then there's a more extensive background to add due to the release of a questionnaire. Not to mention if they're an accomplished lawyer or state judge (say like a state Supreme Court justice) then you can easily find additional information from their bios within law firms and/or courts. I've done numerous nominee articles in the past and this is the first I've ever had this issue come up. Snickers2686 (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I missed the short bio, apparantly, unless you mean "A. Marvin Quattlebaum, Jr., of South Carolina, to be United States District Judge for the District of South Carolina, vice Cameron M. Currie, retired."here, which IMHO does not qualify as such. Can you provide a link? What about the "significant coverage" required by WP:GNG? Kleuske (talk) 19:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * This is the link I'm referring to: It was made available earlier today: "President Donald J. Trump Announces Sixth Wave of Judicial Candidates and Fifth Wave of U.S. Attorney Candidates"; he's the sixth nominee listed. Snickers2686 (talk) 19:59, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a short bio, which doesn't mention basic biographical facts (date/place of birth, etc). As an aside, since POTUS nominated the man, it can hardly be argued this is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" which WP:GNG calls for. Kleuske (talk) 20:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Date and place of birth have already been added from another source. As more information becomes available, it will be added, but for now, I think what is there is sufficient enough to keep the article. As I've said, there's precedent for many other judicial nominees having articles and I don't see how or why that would change now. Snickers2686 (talk) 20:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:47, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep By longstanding precedent, articles have been created on Article III Judicial nominees at the time of their nomination. While technically these individuals may not satisfy the Wikipedia notability guidelines at the time of their nomination, we find it easier to create such articles now, rather than to wait for their confirmation. Additionally, Article III Judges who have been confirmed have a presumption of notability, per long precedent. I see no reason for deletion, which could lead to a deletion spree of other recently created articles. If this nominee ultimately fails to be confirmed, we can pursue deletion at that time. Safiel (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Ummm... "Nominees whose nomination has not yet come to a vote are not inherently notable." WikiProject United States courts and judges/Notability. Admittedly there's an "in practice" clause following that, but that's still WP:TOOSOON. Kleuske (talk) 21:55, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * But even said clause assumes they will be confirmed, thus, implying notability. "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. At worst, the article just needs a (ref improve) tag, in which more sources will be added once additional research is done independently. Snickers2686 (talk) 22:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. 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 WP:GNG. I acknowledge 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.) TJRC (talk) 22:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * TJRC, I must reject your assessment of the USCJ notability guidelines. Although the number of editors participating in writing these guidelines has been small, they have been discussed at various points over the history of the project. Some of the edits I have made to those guidelines have reflected points raised by other project members. I am confident that the more active members of the project are aware of the guidelines, and would not hesitate to raise any particular objection that they have. In short, I think that it does represent a consensus on the project. That said, I would welcome any proposals for improvement. With respect to the issue at hand, it may be true that a nominee in this day and age is likely to get immediate coverage, but is this the case for all past failed nominees? I don't know. I would suggest, however, that there has to be more to this subject's biography than what is currently in the article, to explain exactly how he came to be a federal judicial nominee. bd2412  T 00:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You're saying that the vetting process done by Senators PRIOR to becoming a candidate and/or being nominated is now needed? Am I understanding that right? Honestly, I've never known that to be public record until the questionnaires are released by committee or the Senator(s) office does a press release after the nomination. If I'm misinterpreting, I apologize. Snickers2686 (talk) 04:02, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about the vetting process, but about the process by which this name got on the President's desk. Federal judges aren't picked out of the phone book, or really even purely on merit, and rarely even because they personally know the President who nominates them. They are nominated because they have some connection to their Senator, or someone of equivalent pull within their state. It is sometimes possible to find reporting indicating, e.g., who recommended the nominee to the President. bd2412  T 04:08, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per points made by, district court judges pass Wikipedia notability and coverage guidelines. Zbase4 (talk) 04:06, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep 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, he would meet my standards for jurists. Bearian (talk) 13:09, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Re: "This president almost certainly does pick his some of nominees from unorthodox sources". There is no indication whatsoever that this president's judicial nominees represent anything other than politics as usual. bd2412  T 13:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep 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 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 WP:POLITICIAN, 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 this and this, for example. Per those sources, he is a past president of the South Carolina Bar. Marquardtika (talk) 18:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.