Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiffany M. Cartwright


 * 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. until such time as her nomination is confirmed as consensus is clear the sourcing isn't otherwise sufficient. There is no deadline, but this preserves the content and attribution. Given conduct of MIAJudges, will SALT the mainspace article. Star  Mississippi  02:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Tiffany M. Cartwright

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

Not appointed, not notable. Tagged by Iseult, draftified by me, tags removed, draft reverted by creator, so here we are. Fails WP:GNG; WP:NPOL, some serious WP:OWN IMHO. And I wonder why. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Law, United States of America,  and Washington. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - The subject has been nominated to by the US president for judgeship pending appointment to a federal bench - a near certainty and hardly "not appointed, not notable." In fact, a U.S. Senate panel in June 2022 advanced President Biden's nominations, which pushes three women, including Cartwright, to the next step in confirmation, information that is in the article with a reliable source. The subject has also received notable awards, and multiple reliable sources can be found about the subject. Passes WP:GNG and meets WP:BASIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 11:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Draftify: WP:USCJN offers the guidelines for this case. Draftify until after the full confirmation vote. Federal judges are notable per WP:NPOL; however, USCJN#3 states that . Considering the committee vote was a narrow 12-10, there is a chance her confirmation vote by the full Senate will fail. However, as the guideline outlines, she may still be notable per WP:GNG after that point, as the guidelines notes this is rare. This article was created far WP:TOOSOON. As far as WP:OWN, I don't see anyone claiming ownership at all; please clarify that statement. Curbon7 (talk) 13:45, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no WP:GNG at the moment by the way, as there does not appear to be any WP:SIGCOV of her. Curbon7 (talk) 13:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY and WP:BASIC Snickers2686 (talk) 14:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * , How does she pass WP:BASIC at the moment? I am not seeing any sources that provide WP:SIGCOV. Curbon7 (talk) 15:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Draftify unconfirmed nominees for federal judgeships do not meet inclusion criteria, and there is nothing else to add towards notability at the present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:50, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

She is a nominee for a federal judgeship & even has already had hear hearing in the SJC. Please do not remove this article. MIAJudges (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Draftify. She does not currently have notability, which is why I tagged it. There are a bunch of articles created about nominees for ambassadorships of judgeships who have not yet been confirmed; I don't agree with this practice. These articles belong in mainspace when and only when they have been confirmed, and even then WP:GNG must be passed. It's far too soon. Iseult   Δx parlez moi 03:45, 1 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I completely & respectfully disagree with this. Wikipedia has a long tradition of making pages for nominees for important positions. If the senate rejects her, we can then go ahead & delete he page. While she is under consideration as a nominee from the leader of the free world for a senate confirmed position, she is an important enough of a figure to have a Wikipedia page. There is no limit on the number of pages Wikipedia can have so I am not even sure what the harm is in having a page for her. This is honestly the first time I have ever even heard of a nominee to be a federal judge not deserving to have a page on this site. As a daily editor on this site, I wholly do not agree with this assertion & do not give consensus whatsoever to delete her, nor any other nominee for a federal judgeships page. Thank you
 * MIAJudges (talk) 04:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * , please consider reading WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Just about every argument you made in that reply should be avoided. Curbon7 (talk) 13:48, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep: Not a close call IMHO and I'm concerned that some editors have not even bothered to run BEFORE searches here and are failing to heed WP:HEY. Clearly notable even just based on the sources cited thus far. DocFreeman24 (talk) 06:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * , I am so confused by this statement. First of all, do not insinuate that I (or JPL, Iseult, and Alexandermcnabb for that matter) did not conduct a WP:BEFORE search. Second, "failing to heed WP:HEY"? This is a complete gibberish statement. Thirdly, none of the sources thus far provide any WP:SIGCOV with reliability:
 * Primary source questionnaire written by the subject herself
 * No SIGCOV
 * Reprint of above
 * Reprint of above
 * Not reliable as it is a party-aligned advocacy group
 * Not reliable, as it is her workplace
 * Obviously not reliable
 * Press release
 * No SIGCOV
 * No SIGCOV and it's an interview with the subject anyways
 * No SIGCOV
 * Same questionnaire as above again
 * No SIGCOV and press release
 * Provides SIGCOV, but reliability is extremely tenuous
 * This says literally nothing
 * No SIGCOV
 * Provides SIGCOV, questionable reliability.
 * What world are you possibly living in where you believe this is a "speedy keep"? You've been an editor for a while, you should know better at this point. Curbon7 (talk) 13:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * My point about the lack of BEFORE searches is that I found Refs 8 & 9 immediately after running a BEFORE search and yet they hadn't even been used in the article or referenced in this AFD!


 * Also, the things you are describing as not SIGCOV are baffling to me. Refs 2-5 are literally only about the individual subject of the article!  And I don't agree at all that Ref 5 is not reliable simply because it comes from a politically aligned group.  Refs 9-11 are about notable cases she has worked on and she is quoted at length in them.  And Refs 14 & 17 we aren't even discussing because you agree they constitute SIGCOV (and I find both to be sufficiently reliable personally)!  Also, the point about WP:HEY is clearly not gibberish because it's now been made twice in this AFD!


 * I don't know why you're trying to impose a heightened standard as to this individual but this article is far from the sort we need to deal with at AFD. This individual is well within the bounds of GNG in my humble opinion.  And please keep it WP:CIVIL and avoid hurling insults like you do in your closing sentence.  Editors can disagree but there's no justification for insulting someone like that simply because they disagree with you. DocFreeman24 (talk) 14:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a different between insulting and constructively criticizing or disagreeing. Insulting is if I called you dumb (which you're not btw) or something like that. If you feel I've personally attacked you, by all means take me to ANI. I'm just surprised you consider this (and 3 and 4 are just reprints of this) to be providing SIGCOV. A source that focuses solely on the subject, but says basically nothing of substance or just lists positions is not SIGCOV. In sources 9-11 that I linked, these are only passing mentions; they're fine to use in the article obviously, but they do not provide Cartwright with any notability and so are irrelevant for the purposes of this AfD. 14 comes directly from a senator, so the reliability is going to be questionable, and 17 is probably unreliable as it is a blog. I'm not tryign to push a heightened standard, I am trying to push the established standard as laid out in WP:NPOL and WP:USCJN. It's not like we're arguing for hard deletion anyways, just pushing it into draftspace for like a month or so. Curbon7 (talk) 15:08, 1 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Question Heed WP:HEY in what way? And passes WP:GNG or WP:NPOL in what way? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * My point was simply that multiple additional references have been added since the article was first contested thus my reference to WP:HEY. And as explained in my other reply above, it seems pretty clear to me at this point that the article passes GNG given that, IMHO, there are at least eight references that sufficiently cover the subject of the article. DocFreeman24 (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The sources were dealt with quite effectively, in my humble opinion, by User:Curbon7 above. They most certainly do not constitute WP:HEY. As an unelected official, she presents zero notability right now, and fails WP:NPOL as per my nomination. Apart from this nomination to a political post, which she has not achieved, there is no other reason to consider her notable. Easy peasy, really. Draftify was the best route, but that was rejected by the article's author, User:Snickers2686, which is why we're all here right now. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Draftify: 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) 21:24, 4 July 2022 (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.