Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jorge Alberto Rodriguez


 * 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 draftify. There seems to be a consensus this article is not ready for the mainspace. A redirect can be created in the interim if desired, and this decision does not mean the article can't be moved back to the mainspace if circumstances change. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:05, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Jorge Alberto Rodriguez

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

This page was nominated for PROD by using an incorrect procedure, and then deprodded without comment by. The rationale was: –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 15:49, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Law,  and New York. –LaundryPizza03 ( d  c̄ ) 15:49, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of federal judges appointed by Joe Biden. Per recent news events (about a judicial vacancy no longer being vacant?), there seem to be special circumstances here. Still, better to redirect to the list of nominations and preserve this page's history if the situation changes again. Novemberjazz 15:57, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep to me it's WP:TOOSOON to say what will happen to this nominee. Technically, his nomination is still pending. Perhaps he'll be nominated to another seat in New York. Until nomination is withdrawn by White House, to me, that's what should determine if the article is still warranted. Snickers2686 (talk) 16:43, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Law,  and New York. Shellwood (talk) 17:35, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep for now Draftify, it would probably be better if articles weren't created solely based on nominations, since nominees aren't always confirmed, unless they were independently notable. But now that we've got this one, it seems better to let it play out than to immediately delete.--Jahaza (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect or draftify: Federal judge nominees are not granted inherent notability, per WP:USCJN, and there is no indication that he passes WP:GNG. Per the consensus that was established at Articles for deletion/Tiffany M. Cartwright, draftification seems like a good ATD, serving as a waiting room until he actually becomes notable, but redirection as stated above works too. Curbon7 (talk) 20:41, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Draftify per Articles for deletion/Tiffany M. Cartwright. This is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Once the subject is conformed, it can move to the mainspace, per WP:USCJN. Nominees must meet WP:GNG with multiple independent, reliable sources. --Enos733 (talk) 20:02, 16 August 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.