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 redirect‎ to Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saritha Komatireddy

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG. Unsuccessful federal judicial nominees are not inherently notable. Let'srun (talk) 02:15, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and New York. Let'srun (talk) 02:15, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative proposal: Merge all otherwise non-notable failed presidential judicial nominees into a single article along the lines of Unsuccessful Donald Trump judicial nominations. We can preserve a truncated form of the data in one place, without reaching individual notability concerns. BD2412 T 21:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think a redirect to Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies makes more sense, seeing as there is already a description of the WP:BLP1E for this nominee and the other non-notable failed presidential judicial nominees, along with details about specific dates regarding the nomination process and why the nomination ultimately failed. As it is, the list of otherwise non-notable judicial nominees for Trump is fairly small and I don't think there is the needed SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 15:25, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:52, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the target suggested by Let'srun. Hatman31 (talk) 20:52, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, otherwise redirect per above. While the nom is quite right to state that Unsuccessful federal judicial nominees are not inherently notable, they are also not inherently un-notable. There's a lot of duplication among Indian wire service articles, but at least one of them should reasonably count, and we also have these bylined reports from Bloomberg and the Boston Globe. And then there's this page or so of coverage related to her AUSA work. (One gets the impression from news searches that she has a much higher than average profile as an AUSA, which doesn't bear directly on the question of notability but does explain why it's not surprising to run across such coverage occasionally.) Some coverage in Telugu press as well, although the articles I've been able to locate don't have a lot of independent content. -- Visviva (talk) 02:09, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.