Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Mateer


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Jeff Mateer
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

The article does not meet Notability, and likely violates NPOV.
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 23.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 16:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. Arguably notable as one of the whistleblowers who filed a complaint about Ken Paxton, which made The Dallas Morning News call the group the "Texans of the Year", not just for the statements that led to his rejection as a judge nominee. The article seems to have a neutral point of view. Its talk page includes some additional suggested references that might be worth adding. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, his actions as general counsel for First Liberty Institute have been in the news, and are similarly controversial. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: Mateer easily meets the WP:GNG with the coverage in the article surrounding his failed judicial nomination, along with sources such as [] outside of that context showing that WP:SUSTAINED is met. If the consensus is not to keep, this should be redirected to Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies as a WP:ATD. I'm also not seeing any POV issues here. Let&#39;srun (talk) 01:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep, per WP:USCJN. Presidential judicial nominees whose nomination is withdrawn due to controversy are evaluated the same was as those rejected by the United States Senate, for whom "this is strong evidence of notability that can be established by any other indicia of notability". Clearly there are other indicia, so this rises above that line. BD2412  T 16:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep I doubt this article will stand the test of time and meet WP:sustained standards over the long haul, but I agree with the other editors here that it does meet notoriety standards now and should be kept. Go4thProsper (talk) 18:55, 25 May 2024 (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.