Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Bernard Day


 * 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. Mkativerata (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Charles Bernard Day

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This page was created following Day's nomination to a U.S. federal judgeship. When federal judges are confirmed, the Federal Judicial Center provides reliable info on them - U.S. district judges have therefore always been considered notable. Day's nomination was withdrawn by Obama today and he will therefore not be becoming a federal judge. I suggest deleting the page. Lincolnite (talk) 01:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: I should clarify that Day is already an Article I judge (he serves as a U.S. magistrate judge) but that Article I judges are rarely covered on Wikipedia (they tend to be very obscure and the FJC doesn't maintain a database of them). By contrast, he was due to become an Article III judge (higher profile and covered by the FJC, hence the reason the page was created) but, following the withdrawal of his nomination, he will now remain an Article I judge. --Lincolnite (talk) 03:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Article I judges are not inherently notable. His nomination to be an Article III judge has been withdrawn.  He is not otherwise notable. Safiel (talk) 16:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete agree with Safiel. Hekerui (talk) 19:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Day's nomination was blocked, which qualifies him as a controversial nominee. Per notability guidelines, the fact that he was rejected does not make him inherently notable, but does put him in a different category than a nominee who merely withdrew (as typically happens en masse at the end of a president's term): "Nominees whose nomination is rejected by the United States Senate are not inherently notable; however, as the rejection of a nominee to such a position is a rare and politically important event, this is strong evidence of notability that can be established by any other indicia of notability...Nominees who withdraw, die, are withdrawn by the President prior to a vote on the nomination, or are returned by the United States Senate without being processed are not inherently notable. If a withdrawal from consideration is prompted by conflict over the nomination, which makes it tantamount to a defeat in the Senate, such a nominee is evaluated as though they had been rejected by the Senate." Billyboy01 (talk) 05:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Unfortunately, the problem with this approach is that, after reviewing the media, the Congressional Record and the Senate Judiciary Committee website, I can find nothing as to why this apparently well qualified individual has been denied even a hearing. With Goodwin Liu and others, there was a clear trail of controversy in the media and in the Congressional Record. Absolutely nothing for this guy. Whatever has held this guy up has been kept very quiet. To justify keeping him as a "controversial" candidate, means that we need to have some sources as to what the controversy was and frankly, we have nothing. We may never know what sank this guy's nomination. In light of the lack of such information or sources, I would continue to suggest delete. Safiel (talk) 05:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Liu was an appellate nominee who was widely seen as a possible future Supreme Court candidate, so it's not surprising that his failed nomination generated a longer paper trail than that of a district court nominee. What's clear is that Republicans went as far as blocking his nomination, something they didn't do for other controversial district court nominees such as John J. McConnell, Jr. and Edward M. Chen. Here's a source that confirms Republican opposition to his nomination: "Mikulski and Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) said in a joint statement that Republicans didn't allow the Senate Judiciary Committee to hold a confirmation hearing for Day". It's true we might never know why Republicans blocked Day's nomination, but the fact that they did certainly qualifies him as "controversial" (especially given that he had support of both of his home state Senators). Billyboy01 (talk) 06:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. I think Billyboy01 captured correctly the essence of this particular nominee and why he remains notable. Merely being a magistrate judge may not establish notability, but it gets a nominee a good ways there.  Then, the fact that Day was blocked in a sort of pocket filibuster at the committee level suggests that something came up (in his background check, perhaps?) that Republican senators had a problem with.  We may never learn what that is (although I hope we do). However, I think notability is clearly established if one marries the fact that Day is a federal magistrate judge with the fact that Day was blocked from receiving a hearing (a very rare occurrence in the Senate) *and* that that blockage ostensibly was why his nomination went down. Jarvishunt (talk) 10:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am on the fence about this one, but leaning towards keep. The American Constitution Society quotes NPR as saying, "Some of the longest waiting nominees, Louis Butler of Wisconsin, Charles Bernard Day of Maryland and Edward Dumont of Washington happen to be black or openly gay." Day happens to be black, the implication being that his nomination was stalled by racial animus, which would be particularly controversial. I also think that maybe we should adjust our guidelines to give additional weight to someone who, like Day, was actually twice nominated and still not confirmed. However, I also wonder whether we might find other indicia of notability for Day. According to his faculty profile at American University, he "was also a frequent legal commentator for CNN and other national television and cable broadcasters". If this article is not kept, this title should redirect to the appropriate section of Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies. Cheers! bd2412  T 15:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: What I'm hearing is that there's probably enough out there for him to pass GNG if nothing else. Failing that, redirect per BD  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  15:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per interesting historicity and WP:NOTPAPER. Dualus (talk) 19:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I think the information on Day should be moved over to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies as most of the important information relating to him is already there. Glo145 (talk) 21:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - While it appears it is only typical that Article III Judges are notable (whatever that means, exactly), the fact that an individual has been nominated to that and NOT become one would, to me, contribute to make that person notable, see also comments by User:Billyboy01. ~ Pesco  So say•we all 05:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 19:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I have added the NPR quote to the article. Cheers! bd2412  T 05:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as above. Can the second sentence of the lede be replaced with "His nomination to a life-tenure, federal district court judgeship during 2010 and 2011 was blocked by Republicans" ? Or is there something I'm missing? (I'll admit to not understanding US politics). Stuartyeates (talk) 05:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that correctly sums up the politics, but is a somewhat inartful way of saying it. We generally do not reference the fact that federal district court judgeships are life-tenure appointments, I suppose because we presume that to be common knowledge. bd2412  T 21:10, 15 November 2011 (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.