Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph A. Laroski


 * 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__. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 18:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Joseph A. Laroski

 * – ( 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 judge on the Court of International Trade. Also no secondary sources Let&#39;srun (talk) 12:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Delete Agree with Nominator 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. VViking Talk Edits 13:52, 29 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: Law and Washington, D.C..  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: per WP:COMMONSENSE. We've always had articles for federal judicial nominees. Why stop now? There would need to be a compelling reason to change this precedent now, and I don't see anyone proposing one. Marquardtika (talk) 18:17, 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". Let&#39;srun (talk) 23:15, 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) 21:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)


 * If so then where are these headlines? Let&#39;srun (talk) 22:14, 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" Let&#39;srun (talk) 13:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete: The Keep rationales presented above are totally devoid of any connection to actual notability criteria, and I hope and trust the closing admin ignores them entirely; we do not get to make up fictional notability guidelines to cover the lack of anything better to proffer. Looking over the article, what I see lacking are not only 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, there's nothing that isn't primary.   Ravenswing      06:13, 1 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 14:12, 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.