Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer L. Hall


 * 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 delete‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Courcelles (talk) 15:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Jennifer L. Hall

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

does not meet notability under WP:NPOL and is wp:TOOSOON since nominee has not been confirmed as a federal district court judge. Also no secondary sources Let&#39;srun (talk) 12:30, 29 June 2023 (UTC)


 * these pages are regularly created on the announcement of the nomination by the WH. prior to 6/28/23 there were already 22 district court nominees with existing pages. even if a nominee is not confirmed not confirmed, their failed nomination is still notable and these pages are maintained Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies FedCourts20 (talk) 13:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC) — FedCourts20 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete. Candidates for political office does not confer notability; even a candidate for Congress. By analogy, a nomination for judgeship does not either. Nor does education, experience as a lawyer, or appointment as a magistrate. Kablammo (talk) 13:35, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Does seem TOOSOON. Sources are are from the Gov't or press releases, I can't find much beyond simple announcements of the candidacy. Oaktree b (talk) 14:20, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Delete Agree with Nominator and Kablammo, according to WP:NPOL if this individual doesn't meet the WP:GNG they shouldn't be included. I don't see how they meet General Notability. As for "Prior to 6/28/2023 there were already 22 district court nominees..." this is an example of other things exist which is not an argument for keeping the article.-- VViking Talk Edits 13:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep The public needs to know about the president's judge nominees, plus the page would likely be needed to be published if her appointment goes through in 12/23. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starlighsky (talk • contribs) 14:05, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * She has a Ph.D in Biochemistry and Biophysics. This seems to have helped her in terms of applying scientific knowledge to complicated patent infringement cases as a judge, one such case is in the article and referenced. That is something that should likely be notable in the world of judges. Starlighsky (talk) 23:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I want to add that this judge and fellow presidential nominee Judge Brandy McMillion are both women who have advance degrees in engineering or science, a masters in Industrial Engineering and a Ph.D in Biochemistry, respectively.
 * Both have published statements in patent law either as having written an article or court judgement, respectively. Their nominations by the president give insight for historians on how the president in deciding on judge candidates. Starlighsky (talk) 13:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:Some stuff exists for a reason Snickers2686 (talk) 14:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law,  and Delaware.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC)


 * 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) 20:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Per the WP:USCJN section on U.S. District Court judges, "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". Being a magistrate judge doesn't fulfill this criteria on its own. Let&#39;srun (talk) 02:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The WP:USCJN section on U.S. District Court judges directive states a nomination doesn't mean they are inherently notable but that does not mean the nominees aren't notable. A person is never nominated to an equal branch of government for a lifetime appointment by the leader of the executive branch without having a lengthy career & background. All of the nominees have references to their careers in the press. The president's own announcement details each of their bios.
 * MIAJudges (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete: Not only are the Keep rationales presented above totally devoid of any connection to actual notability criteria, they're frankly BS that I hope the closing admin ignores entirely; we do not get to make up fictional notability guidelines. Looking over the article, what I see lacking are 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.   Ravenswing      06:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ravenswing
 * The tone in your response is really unnecessary. You can argue your viewpoint without resorting to calling the views of somebody who differs with yours "BS" & hoping "the closing admin ignores entirely". You wrote on the AFD that you have 19 years at Wikipedia. I would expect somebody with your experience to stick to the matter at hand without those types of shots being thrown. It's really not necessary. Feel free to review the advice you gave another user in the past...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Justinw303


 * MIAJudges (talk) 22:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I stand by my statement; if you're going to invent spurious rationales to Keep, you cannot expect to avoid being called on it.   Ravenswing     04:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with a difference of opinion. You are entitled to that. I have a problem with calling other volunteers opinions “BS” & saying they should be ignored. So I stand by your statement you sent to the other user I linked above. You can disagree without being disagreeable & I would expect somebody who touts their 19 years of Wikipedia seniority as much as you do to do so.
 * Since you took the time to look at my page per your incident comments on the AFD (I still don’t know why) I took the time to look at yours. I see I’m not the first person to mention this to you. Stick to arguing your position & drop the vulgarities & personalizing your attacks & you will be living by the advice you gave I mentioned above.
 * MIAJudges (talk) 17:39, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * And you can disagree without plain making things up. You are repeatedly claiming that spurious grounds are actually represented in notability criteria. You have repeatedly claimed that there has never been a case on Wikipedia where an article on a judicial nominee has been deleted.  And you have repeatedly refused to demonstrate links to the former, or any evidence whatsoever of the latter. This is -- me not being afraid of answering questions -- why I took time to look at your page.  It is common practice at ANI to survey the records of involved parties, especially when they're making extraordinary claims.  I am not the first, nor the first hundredth, editor to do so.  That record was what led some of us to conclude that you were tossing out spurious notability grounds and making wild claims out of inexperience.  Your assertion that you are using an alternate account, and that you are actually a veteran editor, takes that excuse out of play.  There are few other reasons for your repeated refusal to answer those questions. I struck that because it's gotten a whole lot more serious. You making up headlines to mislead participants in the Garnett AfD  is not only reprehensible, that sort of shenanigans is the reason why some of us are careful about checking evidence. You want to explain yourself, and you want to do it fast.   Ravenswing      06:06, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete; agree with Ravenswing in full. If curious about why the other votes exist, the closing admin should see Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents.  Iseult   Δx parlez moi 14:10, 1 July 2023 (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.