Tiffany M. Cartwright – There is no consensus to overturn the "draftify" closure, which therefore remains in effect. I agree with the advice to MIAJudges to read and heed WP:BLUDGEON. Sandstein 08:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Tiffany M. Cartwright (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) Inconsistent with treatment of all other federal judicial nominees. Nomination to a lifetime judgeship is obviously notable. See, e.g., the scores of nominees collected on pages such as List of federal judges appointed by Joe Biden, or Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies. This is currently the only page for a nominee to an Article III judgeship to not have an article, and the draft is better than most. Also, if anything, the consensus in the deletion discussion was to keep the article, not to draftify it, which was the position of the only participating editors with experience editing articles related to legal subjects. See also the opposition on the talk page. Iowalaw2 (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and keep - The decision to delete was inconsistent with the treatment of the articles for all other United States federal judicial nominees and as such appears capricious in nature. The article should be returned to published status without delay. Valadius (talk) 22:56, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply] Closer comment past discussions are at: Draft talk:Tiffany M. Cartwright, User_talk:Star_Mississippi/Archive_10#Wikipedia_section_for_presidential_nominees. I'm not sure whether @MIAJudges began the RfC or not, but courtesy ping to them as well. Star Mississippi 01:21, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply] I believe I closed it along with consensus, and further discussion seems to indicate she will be notable when confirmed but not before. I have no objection should this close to change the outcome, and no issue with this DRV being raised. Star Mississippi 01:26, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and keep - I put this request in months ago so I am not sure why this is coming up now. But I felt then as I still do now this is an obviously notable person. I even tried to add two articles about her on the page, but it was taken out to prevent showing she is notable. I believe her page should be reinstated till however to be consistent with all other pages of any nominee for a federal judgeship by the President of the USA. MIAJudges (talk) 01:33, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply] just purely speaking to why now, I'm guessing @Iowalaw2 stumbled on the draft when they went looking for an article on Cartwright? As an aside to the discussion, have there been any updated reports on when the Senate is expected to confirm the slate of nominees. I haven't seen anything. Star Mississippi 02:41, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply] As to updates, Cartwright has now made it through committee, which practically speaking virtually guarantees that she will be confirmed by the close of the current Congress. And yes, I just stumbled on the anomaly, and was particularly concerned as someone who primarily edits judiciary-related articles that this will set a bad precedent. Iowalaw2 (talk) 14:29, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to no consensus as ~~two~~ three of the Draftify !votes expect that GNG and relevant SNG both need to be satisfied, which is not a policy-based argument. One of the other draftify !votes should have been assigned less weight by an experienced admin based on that account's history of deletion discussion involvement and associated sanctions. Jclemens (talk) 03:49, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply] I may be wrong on timing here, but wasn't JPL's !vote pre-sanctions? Not disagreeing with the rest of your comment here and am neutral on the DRV. I mean yes, his history is long but my re-reading of this AfD is that it wasn't out of line with other !votes whereas the speedy keep was. Star Mississippi 17:06, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply] It probably was, but the sanctions are not the foundational problem I was referring to. Rather, JPL's longstanding preference for deletion should cause yet another deletion !vote to be assessed lower weight. For balance, I would expect this of a number of other editors are well known for !votes to keep pretty much anything as well. Jclemens (talk) 05:54, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply] Makes total sense, thanks for clarifying. Star Mississippi 13:10, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply] Overturn, mainspace the draft. Passes the GNG. 1. 2. The SNG is a predictor of what subjects will probably pass the GNG; having passed the GNG the SNG is moot. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:13, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply] It’s reference bombed with mere mentions. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:57, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply] Support the close. As in the original deletion discussion, the arguments in favour of keeping the article are based on flawed reasoning - she has not been CONFIRMED to post and therefore it is WP:TOOSOON to presume her notable by dint of her role. As for the 'She meets WP:GNG' above, the first source cited to support that contention is a blog!!! Blogs is not RS. The other argument, "...expect that GNG and relevant SNG both need to be satisfied, which is not a policy-based argument" is very strange reasoning. Our policy absolutely is that subjects need to meet WP:GNG!!! Cartwright, until confirmed, doesn't. That was supported by the draft declines of Praxidicae, Curbon7 and 0xDeadbeef - all highly experienced AfC/AfD hands. Oh, and we don't need to be "legal experts" to reach consensus on this - just reasonably competent Wikipedia editors... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:37, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply] Nomination to a federal judgeship is notable in the legal world regardless of the result, which is why every lawyer to comment on every page has opposed and why hundreds of similar articles have been approved for creation without objection. Federal judicial nominations may be obscure to you, but most litigators follow them closely, and virtually all result in substantial press coverage in our world. Even nominees whose nominations blow up, like Matthew S. Petersen, become notable in law due to their nominations. For example, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. Iowalaw2 (talk) 14:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply] I'm so sorry that I don't live 'in your world' but notability in Wikipedia is not notability in law. Many, many things are obscure to me as it happens - including why people with a specialisation would talk down to the rest of humanity by dint of their membership of a clan or tribe they have self-elected themselves to. Luckily, Wikipedia is a more egalitarian church... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:36, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply] Ignoring the rudeness, you objected to the sources provided by @SmokeyJoe but have no comment on nine more from major outlets or organizations? You seem to base your judgment on a bright-line rule that judicial nominees are not notable until confirmed with no evident basis and no support from the many specialist editors in this area. Iowalaw2 (talk) 16:37, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply] Again, "specialist editors in this area". WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:47, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and mainspace The arguments for deletion are seriously wrong in thinking the subject must be able to be presumed notable from an SNG. There seems to be a widespread misunderstanding that people who are not inherently notable must therefore be inherently non-notable. GNG (people) is based on suitable sources, not the status of the individual. Moreover the GNG (people) basic criteria say notability may be established even from individually slight references "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability ..." (but they go on to say this is not usual).[1] The notability rationale is that "We require 'significant coverage' in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic."[2] Thincat (talk) 09:29, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply] I think "no consensus" would be a better close than "draftify". A lot of the delete comments are based on the subject not meeting WP:USCJN (an information page drawn up by a Wikiproject with no official standing) or not meeting WP:NPOL (which doesn't mean the subject isn't notable). There was some discussion of sourcing but it wasn't great. It looks like this AfD is being used as a way to deflect any attempt to move the draft back to mainspace until she's confirmed, which doesn't seem right given how borderline the AfD was and the fact that the notability guidelines don't expect confirmation. Hut 8.5 10:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply] Nobody in the entire discussion cited WP:USCJN. She's not notable until she's confirmed - and the discussion on sourcing was granular and well argued - including a blow-by-blow analysis of the sources. So that's two relatively hard to defend assertions. The argument was that the subject does not meet WP:GNG AND WP:NPOL. And the majority of votes were to draftify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandermcnabb (talk • contribs) Woops didn't notice my non-sign... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply] Nobody in the entire discussion cited WP:USCJN - er, no, it was cited several times. She's not notable until she's confirmed - no, she's not inherently notable until she's confirmed, which is not the same thing. the majority of votes were to draftify - numerically this AfD was 5 to 3, which isn't a huge margin, and one of the people supporting draftification has since been banned from taking part in deletion discussions, in part for making large numbers of rapid-fire recommendations to delete things, so I wouldn't attach much weight to that comment. While there was some discussion of sourcing it didn't go much further than disagreement. Hut 8.5 11:53, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply] Ah, you're right - 3 times, twice by Curbon7 (I honestly hadn't noticed) - who also offered a detailed refutation of the presented sources - all 17 of 'em, so I don't think there was "some discussion of sourcing" or that it "didn't go much further than disagreement." Because she doesn't otherwise pass WP:GNG, she's not notable until she's confirmed. We're discussing one case here, not inherent notability as an abstract. The discussion was properly closed and can properly give way once she becomes a thing. But right now she's not a thing and therefore has no inherent notability to get her past WP:GNG. This is all getting a tad circular, IMHO... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:02, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply] In addition to the "Tiffany M. Cartwright" page, I also believe the "Jorge Alberto Rodriguez" page should also be reinstated. He was nominated to be a federal judge, his nomination has not been pulled & even if it is, the circumstances that would lead to his nomination being pulled would make him notable as the first Biden nomination to be withdrawn. And that's in addition to his career working for the governor of New York even before his nomination. MIAJudges (talk) 17:33, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply] I see that @Eddie891 draftified it in August. Given that the last AfD is 2018, this could be a case of consensus having changed. (I haven't reviewed the draft, so no comment). You could try for acceptance via AfC, open a separate Deletion Review or wait until this closes and if restored, this could be merit for that one being restored. Just giving you options, not assessing merit. Star Mississippi 17:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply] Ok, I will wait to see if "Tiffany M. Cartwright" page is reinstated first. Thanks MIAJudges (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply] Rodriguez's nomination is in, as far as I know, a novel, sui generis situation, and I think there are reasonable arguments both for creating the article or for redirecting it to the Biden judicial nominee controversies article. Iowalaw2 (talk) 18:36, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply] As far as I'm concerned, Rodriguez's article should be reinstated, and then a discussion could be had about whether or not to redirect it to the Biden judicial nominee controversies article if the nomination winds up being pulled. Valadius (talk) 23:22, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply] @Iowalaw2 I already spoke up & they still deleted his page. Perhaps if you can make a request maybe they can hear it from somebody else. I can chime in on the request if you do. MIAJudges (talk) 21:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply] You had an issue there in your ping of @Iowalaw2 so just pinging them here to ensure they see your response, although I suspect they're watching this discussion . Star Mississippi 02:21, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply] Awesome, I'm not sure why my tag didn't go through but thank you MIAJudges (talk) 03:56, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply] you're welcome. "Gremlins" is my usual answer for random issues. Star Mississippi 13:51, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - There were valid Keep arguments and valid Draftify arguments, and the close was a valid conclusion. As written, in my opinion, the BLP does not pass general notability. A nominee for the federal judiciary will almost always satisfy general notability based on coverage of the nomination by newspapers of record. This draft does not describe that significant coverage by independent sources. The proponents would be better off just to add coverage by the New York Times, Washington Post, and a Seattle newspaper of her nomination, rather than arguing that the closer made a mistake, which they did not. The closer was right not to count at all the Speedy Keep, which is very seldom correct, and usually means, "I don't like this AFD and don't plan to be reasonable." The proponents would be better off to improve the draft than to quarrel with the closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:48, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply] Support close I agree with Robert McClenon, there were arguments for both Keep and Draftiy and the only other conclusion I can see the closer coming to, as they weighed the consensus of this AFD discussion, is No consensus which seems to be an unsatisfying close to most people and I think might have still have brought us here to DRV. It's important to note that several editors advocating Draftify implied that this was a temporary article move and in time, the article would be back in main space once she was confirmed. Even though some editors have criticized the adequacy of the sources, no one was advocating Deletion of the article. In this instance the closer made a safe and understandable close and I might have chosen Draftify as well. I also agree with Robert that the article will be moved to main space quicker if time was spent improving the article rather than challenging an AFD close that, according to most parties, will only result in a temporary stay in Draft space. However, three different AFC reviewers have judged the article to not be ready for main space so I can't help thinking that rather than improving the Draft so it meets approval, DRV coiuld be seen as a shortcut. I realize this is all an observation, not a policy-based argument but I don't think the two sides are really that far apart. Two or three more good sources that provide SIGCOV is probably all that is keeping this article in Draft space. Just a note though that the main space page is protected and will have to be unprotected when the article is accepted by AFC. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:49, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply] The problem is I actually added two articles regarding her & cases she was involved in. They were rejected, presumably by somebody that wanted to keep their point of view the consensus so they can delete her page. The main issue here is consistency. President Biden has nominated 144 judicial nominees & only two are considered not notable. We even have past president's nominees that were never confirmed that have a Wikipedia page. I just don't see how a nominee for a lifetime federal judgeship is not considered notable. I will not understand that for the life of me. I advocate somehow getting the wording changed from Wikipedia to make an exclusion for judicial nominees, but I never got a response. That is the root problem. The wording allows some to question if a federal judicial nominee is notable & the point of many who advocated keeping her page (Just like 142 of the other 143 nominees) is there shouldn't even be a debate & the wording needs to be changed altogether. MIAJudges (talk) 21:38, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply] Would you mind attaching them here? I think more than one of the commenters here could support the article w/ better sourcing. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:53, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply] Regardless of the technicalities of Wikipedia policy, if the issue is just sourcing, keeping it in draft is counterproductive given that it seems that everyone agrees that sufficient sources exist. I would ordinarily be happy to work on the draft but due to its invisibility, the draft has received less work than comparable articles, and I don't see the point of editing an article that has been hijacked by the Wikipedia bureaucracy. I don't know what bad luck this article had to get snagged but once an article has been sucked into this process, it seems very hard to get it out, so it's not worth anyone's while. I also linked nine articles above, though some are in paywalled legal publications so they may not be useful to you. Iowalaw2 (talk) 13:42, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply] Endorse as a reasonable reading of the discussion. I probably would have closed as no consensus, but this close was well within the typical range of discretion we afford closers. It is clear to me than the subject is likely to have a page, but the current sourcing is weak. This is, in my opinion, entirely a function of: (1) her age - mid 30s is very young for a federal judge, and it looks like she's only been a partner in her law firm since 2018 and (2) the U.S. president's expressed desire to nominate people from less traditional walks of the legal profession, which in her case means the subject has not attracted the attention that a lawyer of her apparent stature normally would receive. I'm almost tempted to be pragmatic and just put the page in main space, but while it looks like she cleared the Senate's judiciary committee, I don't see that she's scheduled for hearing by the full Senate, and at this point she's looking at a lame duck session after the election. If control of the Senate flips she may never take the bench. All of this is speculation of course, but that lack of certainty is precisely why I cannot agree that the article should be in main space. Finally, let me echo others in saying that if we can get better sourcing addressing her as she is now - an attorney, not a jurist - notability would be established. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:50, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply] Assuming this is a good faith worry about Senate process, Senate votes on nominees are only scheduled a week or so in advance, and the consensus in the world of confirmation watchers seems to be that nominees who have already made it through committee face no real risk of not being confirmed. Iowalaw2 (talk) 13:52, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to no consensus Much of the "delete" rationale is based on the false premise that not passing an SNG supercedes passing GNG, which is not the case. Frank Anchor 14:17, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply] @Xymmax I added the two articles over a half a year ago & since the article is locked out, I can’t go back into the history to show you the articles. I didn’t save them, but I remember one of the main users that were arguing for taking her page down said I can’t add them. If her article can be reinstated, I will be more than happy to do the research & find them, & likely other notable cases to add to her page. MIAJudges (talk) 14:38, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply] For those concerned she is not notable because it has taken her so long to be confirmed, just as a reminder there are nominees who have been pending for a final vote longer the her. For instance, Dale Ho was nominated September 20th of last year & still needs a discharge vote (Do to him being tied in the judiciary committee) then a final confirmation vote. Tiffany only needs the one confirmation vote so she is much closer to confirmation then he is, and Dale Ho is from the majority leaders home state who scheduled the senate votes. Furthermore, doesn’t the president of the United States releasing an announcement on The White House website announcing he is nominating somebody to a lifetime position to the federal judiciary enough to make them notable. In the announcement, the president describes numerous achievements the person has obtained as well. In addition, she has statements from her two home state senators praising her nomination & she testified in front of the senate judiciary committee. I’m just not understanding how that alone isn’t notable enough for a Wikipedia page. MIAJudges (talk) 14:47, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply] Endorse (involved). All of the draftify/delete comments mentioned that the subject did not pass WP:GNG: "Fails WP:GNG," "There is no WP:GNG at the moment," "WP:GNG must be passed. It's far too soon," "these are only passing mentions," "Nominees must meet WP:GNG with multiple independent, reliable sources." Curbon7 describes 17 sources, and suggests that none of them meet the requirement of significant coverage, with minimal pushback. I do not agree with any SALTing of the title, as I think there is an expectation there will be additional RS coverage of the subject. --Enos733 (talk) 14:59, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply] Many more sources have been posted on this thread, which you can read for yourself. I posted nine additional articles from reliable sources above. There is more than enough to write an article without original research, which is the significant coverage standard, especially combined with the sources previously linked such as the extensive Judiciary Committee questionnaire. Iowalaw2 (talk) 13:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply] There are nominees who can go years and multiple Congresses before they are ultimately confirmed. They have articles published without issue. For some reason this nominee has been singled out for different treatment. Such treatment doesn't make sense. I fail to understand the logic behind deleting articles and locking them as opposed to promoting the spread of information about an individual nominated for a prestigious post. Valadius (talk) 15:01, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply] It's really not rocket science. Without the confirmed nomination, the subject does not meet the Wikipedia General Notability Guideline - WP:GNG. If she is confirmed, she is presumed notable, even if she doesn't otherwise conform with the usual standard of notability - WP:GNG. Absent her confirmation, she is not otherwise notable. There's quite a lot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT going on around here, IMHO. The Wikipedia General Notability Guideline is quite clear - and you do NOT have to be a lawyer with N years' experience at the bar to judge compliance with that particular standard. I do think that some of the incredibly experienced lawyers around here could use a quiet reading of this Wikipedia guideline - 'law' that perhaps doesn't map naturally to their view of 'order'... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:13, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply] Despite your rudeness throughout this thread towards those who disagree with you, you have not given an actual explanation of your position, which I find very confusing. GNG is presumed when there is "significant coverage in reliable sources," such that "no original research is needed to extract the content." That standard is obviously met here, like it is for all similar nominees, which is why this issue has not come up in the entire history of judicial nominations on Wikipedia as far as anyone can tell and why all of us are so baffled. There is no per se rule that nominees are not notable, but you seem to support one. Iowalaw2 (talk) 13:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply] In addition to the two articles I mentioned above describing two high profile cases she was involved in before her nomination, here are FOUR articles about her that were all written since her nomination just to show as the user above mentioned. It is reasonable to assume more articles will be written about her, meeting the standard to allows her to have a Wikipedia page. 1. (https://vettingroom.org/2022/03/24/tiffany-cartwright/) 2.(https://www.afj.org/document/tiffany-m-cartwright-fact-sheet/) 3.(https://ballsandstrikes.org/nominees/tiffany-cartwright/) 4.(https://civilrights.org/resource/support-the-confirmation-of-tiffany-cartwright-to-the-u-s-district-court-for-the-western-district-of-washington/) MIAJudges (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply] While deletion review may be a place to discuss whether "significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page," none of these four sources meet our expectations for RS coverage. Vetting Room - "legal blog dedicated to discussing, examining, and analyzing judicial nominations" (Possibly significant, not a new source since the deletion discussion), Alliance for Justice - advocacy group, Balls and Strikes - "sponsored by Demand Justice, a nonprofit organization that works on court reform efforts," Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights - open letter supporting nomination, also advocacy organization. There is nothing wrong with these sources, but they are not likely to be judged as reliable sources - Enos733 (talk) 15:58, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply] Well, the blog is unacceptable as a source... JoelleJay (talk) 06:18, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply] Moot since you've included them here @MIAJudges. But just a quick note, the history is at the Draft, which is open for editing and you should be able to see your contributions. It may be that we need a history merge, but I don't think so. The benefit of having the draft is that when Cartwright is notable (whether confirmation, this DRV or otherwise), all of the attribution/contributions remain. Let me know if you need more information. Star Mississippi 16:15, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply] Thank you. I was able to find the three notable cases I tried to add in the history. Here they are, all three removed by somebody trying to advocate she wasn’t notable. 1. (https://apnews.com/article/ba24abde58bc4aa68b34e53fe0a218e3) 2. (https://apnews.com/article/520b11f714974fa9bd0049bf61f1388d) 3. (https://apnews.com/article/homicide-trials-lawsuits-crime-seattle-8d1faeceb47ef33b0cc8469ebcf762f1) MIAJudges (talk) 16:54, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply] @Alexandermcnabb I respectfully & completely disagree. I too think it’s not rocket science but in the opposite view point. President Biden has nominated 144 people to be federal judges. He has confirmed 84 which means 60 have not been confirmed. Out of the 60, 2 have their Wikipedia pages locked out because they are not notable. One, Jorge Rodriguez nomination is on hold because the judge he was going to replace has since withdrawn his retirement plans. The other is Tiffany Cartwright. She has been voted out of the senate judiciary committee & is pending a confirmation vote. There are others from the group of 60 that have not even had a senate judiciary committee hearing yet. In addition, there are numerous news articles written about her, I have put ire then a handful of them just on this conversation thread alone. Some of her cases have been major news stories. Plus, when you look at the Wikipedia verbiage, it states that you can consider somebody notable if there is a reasonable expectation that they will have additional news coverage. So between the inconsistencies between this one nominee being singled out compared to the other 58 waiting for confirmation, whether you consider the numerous news articles about her or the fact that she was nominated by the president of the USA for a lifetime seat on the federal judiciary & had a hearing in front of the senate judiciary committee, I too think it’s not rocket science. MIAJudges (talk) 16:52, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply] 'Respectfully' (And, in English idiom, 'with the greatest respect' generally means 'I am about to be rude to you'...), her cases really, really don't matter. They don't make her notable. I could be the stoker on the Mallard, one of the most notable steam trains in history, but that role doesn't make me inherently notable - notability, in Wikipedia, is WP:NOTINHERITED. The 'Wikipedia verbiage' you refer to is a bunch of guidelines reached through consensus by a community - you might even call that 'verbiage' something that guides people's conduct, social relationships and behaviours - oh, let's call it 'law'. The 'reasonable expectation' that someone would be notable - presumed notable - defined by that 'verbiage/consensus/law' is when they become a CONFIRMED JUDGE. Until that point, any notability depends on the General Notability Guideline - WP:GNG. It doesn't matter whether she's the 58th duck in line to get in the pond - she.is.not.notable.right.now. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply] Litigated cases with reliable news coverage are relevant to the notability of an attorney. Your point is confusing and I would encourage you to explain more and insult less. Iowalaw2 (talk) 13:34, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply] @Alexandermcnabb I am not sure what "With all due respect" generally means, but as I stated for me it means I disagree with you but respectfully. Now on to your points. Going by what you said, there was no clear consensus that she was not notable. As you can see by this thread, there seems to be more people that disagree with your viewpoint then agree with it so if anything, I would say the consensus is the article should have remained. And I know it may not matter to you when it comes to her being the 58th duck in line, but there simply is no consistency in removing her page when there are 58 other nominees who have not been confirmed yet with pages. It even makes less sense when many of those nominees haven't even had a hearing, let alone senate judiciary committee vote to send their nominations t the senate floor to await a confirmation vote, which is where her confirmation is at. Nobody still after all this time has been able to explain to me why they are notable but she is not. Now let's go point by point in the Wikipedia guidelines. 1. "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. - She will have increased significant coverage because she will be marked up for a confirmation vote after the senate finishes their six-week recess. Plus, her rulings over the next few decades will have significant coverage as well. 2. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant - I already included 3 news articles with significant civil rights cases that she was the attorney for. That's just 3 cases I tried to include on her page but it was locked out but there are others. 3. "Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. - The articles are from reliable news outlets from the state of Washington. I guess the best question for you is what else (Besides her confirmation) does she need to be as notable as the other 58 Biden judicial nominees with Wikipedia page? I will gladly find them so we can get consensus. MIAJudges (talk) 18:17, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply] For the votes (and remember this isn't a 'vote' - the closer will look at policy, not numbers necessarily) - I count five for and five against. As to notability, as stated above she is not otherwise notable - perhaps the other 58 are? In any case, WP:NEXIST - that other things are is not a case for this thing to be. Whether people have had hearings or not has nothing to do with this specific article. However many cases she was attorney for counts nothing towards her notability - as I stated above. In fact, I'm repeating myself and I'm not sure I'm getting across so Imma stop and let others weigh in - I've stated my case. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:39, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply] @Alexandermcnabb So I guess we need to figure out the next step. I strongly disagree she is not notable. And no, I can assure you the other 58 are not all more notable than she is. I do not see how multiple articles about major civil rights cases that she argued & have been reported on in numerous news articles do not count towards her being notable. I'm sorry but your argument does not seem to be consistent with the case that allows the other 58 to be notable. Also, I still have not seen how she does not meet #1. "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. I am not trying to be hard & honestly when other users usually have a difference of option, I tend to defer but what you are saying just is not showing me how she is not notable. I would like to appeal this. I know other users that are more seasoned when it comes to Wikipedia & passionate about the judiciary probably know what steps to take next such as @Snickers2686 & @Star Garnet so any advice they have I would be happy to escalate. MIAJudges (talk) 05:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply] Comment: I very, very strongly advise MIAJudges to review WP:WALLOFTEXT and WP:BLUDGEON, and focus far more on quality than quantity of argument. Stifle (talk) 08:44, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Tiffany M. Cartwright – There is no consensus to overturn the "draftify" closure, which therefore remains in effect. I agree with the advice to MIAJudges to read and heed WP:BLUDGEON. Sandstein 08:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Inconsistent with treatment of all other federal judicial nominees. Nomination to a lifetime judgeship is obviously notable. See, e.g., the scores of nominees collected on pages such as List of federal judges appointed by Joe Biden, or Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies. This is currently the only page for a nominee to an Article III judgeship to not have an article, and the draft is better than most. Also, if anything, the consensus in the deletion discussion was to keep the article, not to draftify it, which was the position of the only participating editors with experience editing articles related to legal subjects. See also the opposition on the talk page. Iowalaw2 (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and keep - The decision to delete was inconsistent with the treatment of the articles for all other United States federal judicial nominees and as such appears capricious in nature. The article should be returned to published status without delay. Valadius (talk) 22:56, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closer comment past discussions are at: Draft talk:Tiffany M. Cartwright, User_talk:Star_Mississippi/Archive_10#Wikipedia_section_for_presidential_nominees. I'm not sure whether @MIAJudges began the RfC or not, but courtesy ping to them as well. Star Mississippi 01:21, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I closed it along with consensus, and further discussion seems to indicate she will be notable when confirmed but not before. I have no objection should this close to change the outcome, and no issue with this DRV being raised. Star Mississippi 01:26, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and keep - I put this request in months ago so I am not sure why this is coming up now. But I felt then as I still do now this is an obviously notable person. I even tried to add two articles about her on the page, but it was taken out to prevent showing she is notable. I believe her page should be reinstated till however to be consistent with all other pages of any nominee for a federal judgeship by the President of the USA.

MIAJudges (talk) 01:33, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

just purely speaking to why now, I'm guessing @Iowalaw2 stumbled on the draft when they went looking for an article on Cartwright? As an aside to the discussion, have there been any updated reports on when the Senate is expected to confirm the slate of nominees. I haven't seen anything. Star Mississippi 02:41, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As to updates, Cartwright has now made it through committee, which practically speaking virtually guarantees that she will be confirmed by the close of the current Congress. And yes, I just stumbled on the anomaly, and was particularly concerned as someone who primarily edits judiciary-related articles that this will set a bad precedent. Iowalaw2 (talk) 14:29, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to no consensus as ~~two~~ three of the Draftify !votes expect that GNG and relevant SNG both need to be satisfied, which is not a policy-based argument. One of the other draftify !votes should have been assigned less weight by an experienced admin based on that account's history of deletion discussion involvement and associated sanctions. Jclemens (talk) 03:49, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I may be wrong on timing here, but wasn't JPL's !vote pre-sanctions? Not disagreeing with the rest of your comment here and am neutral on the DRV. I mean yes, his history is long but my re-reading of this AfD is that it wasn't out of line with other !votes whereas the speedy keep was. Star Mississippi 17:06, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It probably was, but the sanctions are not the foundational problem I was referring to. Rather, JPL's longstanding preference for deletion should cause yet another deletion !vote to be assessed lower weight. For balance, I would expect this of a number of other editors are well known for !votes to keep pretty much anything as well. Jclemens (talk) 05:54, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Makes total sense, thanks for clarifying. Star Mississippi 13:10, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, mainspace the draft. Passes the GNG. 1. 2. The SNG is a predictor of what subjects will probably pass the GNG; having passed the GNG the SNG is moot. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:13, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It’s reference bombed with mere mentions. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:57, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support the close. As in the original deletion discussion, the arguments in favour of keeping the article are based on flawed reasoning - she has not been CONFIRMED to post and therefore it is WP:TOOSOON to presume her notable by dint of her role. As for the 'She meets WP:GNG' above, the first source cited to support that contention is a blog!!! Blogs is not RS. The other argument, "...expect that GNG and relevant SNG both need to be satisfied, which is not a policy-based argument" is very strange reasoning. Our policy absolutely is that subjects need to meet WP:GNG!!! Cartwright, until confirmed, doesn't. That was supported by the draft declines of Praxidicae, Curbon7 and 0xDeadbeef - all highly experienced AfC/AfD hands. Oh, and we don't need to be "legal experts" to reach consensus on this - just reasonably competent Wikipedia editors... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:37, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination to a federal judgeship is notable in the legal world regardless of the result, which is why every lawyer to comment on every page has opposed and why hundreds of similar articles have been approved for creation without objection. Federal judicial nominations may be obscure to you, but most litigators follow them closely, and virtually all result in substantial press coverage in our world. Even nominees whose nominations blow up, like Matthew S. Petersen, become notable in law due to their nominations. For example, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. Iowalaw2 (talk) 14:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so sorry that I don't live 'in your world' but notability in Wikipedia is not notability in law. Many, many things are obscure to me as it happens - including why people with a specialisation would talk down to the rest of humanity by dint of their membership of a clan or tribe they have self-elected themselves to. Luckily, Wikipedia is a more egalitarian church... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:36, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring the rudeness, you objected to the sources provided by @SmokeyJoe but have no comment on nine more from major outlets or organizations? You seem to base your judgment on a bright-line rule that judicial nominees are not notable until confirmed with no evident basis and no support from the many specialist editors in this area. Iowalaw2 (talk) 16:37, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, "specialist editors in this area". WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:47, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and mainspace The arguments for deletion are seriously wrong in thinking the subject must be able to be presumed notable from an SNG. There seems to be a widespread misunderstanding that people who are not inherently notable must therefore be inherently non-notable. GNG (people) is based on suitable sources, not the status of the individual. Moreover the GNG (people) basic criteria say notability may be established even from individually slight references "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability ..." (but they go on to say this is not usual).[1] The notability rationale is that "We require 'significant coverage' in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic."[2] Thincat (talk) 09:29, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think "no consensus" would be a better close than "draftify". A lot of the delete comments are based on the subject not meeting WP:USCJN (an information page drawn up by a Wikiproject with no official standing) or not meeting WP:NPOL (which doesn't mean the subject isn't notable). There was some discussion of sourcing but it wasn't great. It looks like this AfD is being used as a way to deflect any attempt to move the draft back to mainspace until she's confirmed, which doesn't seem right given how borderline the AfD was and the fact that the notability guidelines don't expect confirmation. Hut 8.5 10:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody in the entire discussion cited WP:USCJN. She's not notable until she's confirmed - and the discussion on sourcing was granular and well argued - including a blow-by-blow analysis of the sources. So that's two relatively hard to defend assertions. The argument was that the subject does not meet WP:GNG AND WP:NPOL. And the majority of votes were to draftify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandermcnabb (talk • contribs)

Woops didn't notice my non-sign... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody in the entire discussion cited WP:USCJN - er, no, it was cited several times. She's not notable until she's confirmed - no, she's not inherently notable until she's confirmed, which is not the same thing. the majority of votes were to draftify - numerically this AfD was 5 to 3, which isn't a huge margin, and one of the people supporting draftification has since been banned from taking part in deletion discussions, in part for making large numbers of rapid-fire recommendations to delete things, so I wouldn't attach much weight to that comment. While there was some discussion of sourcing it didn't go much further than disagreement. Hut 8.5 11:53, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you're right - 3 times, twice by Curbon7 (I honestly hadn't noticed) - who also offered a detailed refutation of the presented sources - all 17 of 'em, so I don't think there was "some discussion of sourcing" or that it "didn't go much further than disagreement." Because she doesn't otherwise pass WP:GNG, she's not notable until she's confirmed. We're discussing one case here, not inherent notability as an abstract. The discussion was properly closed and can properly give way once she becomes a thing. But right now she's not a thing and therefore has no inherent notability to get her past WP:GNG. This is all getting a tad circular, IMHO... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:02, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the "Tiffany M. Cartwright" page, I also believe the "Jorge Alberto Rodriguez" page should also be reinstated. He was nominated to be a federal judge, his nomination has not been pulled & even if it is, the circumstances that would lead to his nomination being pulled would make him notable as the first Biden nomination to be withdrawn. And that's in addition to his career working for the governor of New York even before his nomination.

MIAJudges (talk) 17:33, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see that @Eddie891 draftified it in August. Given that the last AfD is 2018, this could be a case of consensus having changed. (I haven't reviewed the draft, so no comment). You could try for acceptance via AfC, open a separate Deletion Review or wait until this closes and if restored, this could be merit for that one being restored. Just giving you options, not assessing merit. Star Mississippi 17:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will wait to see if "Tiffany M. Cartwright" page is reinstated first. Thanks

MIAJudges (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rodriguez's nomination is in, as far as I know, a novel, sui generis situation, and I think there are reasonable arguments both for creating the article or for redirecting it to the Biden judicial nominee controversies article. Iowalaw2 (talk) 18:36, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned, Rodriguez's article should be reinstated, and then a discussion could be had about whether or not to redirect it to the Biden judicial nominee controversies article if the nomination winds up being pulled. Valadius (talk) 23:22, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Iowalaw2

I already spoke up & they still deleted his page. Perhaps if you can make a request maybe they can hear it from somebody else. I can chime in on the request if you do.

MIAJudges (talk) 21:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You had an issue there in your ping of @Iowalaw2 so just pinging them here to ensure they see your response, although I suspect they're watching this discussion

. Star Mississippi 02:21, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, I'm not sure why my tag didn't go through but thank you

MIAJudges (talk) 03:56, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

you're welcome. "Gremlins" is my usual answer for random issues. Star Mississippi 13:51, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - There were valid Keep arguments and valid Draftify arguments, and the close was a valid conclusion.
- - As written, in my opinion, the BLP does not pass general notability. A nominee for the federal judiciary will almost always satisfy general notability based on coverage of the nomination by newspapers of record. This draft does not describe that significant coverage by independent sources.
  - The proponents would be better off just to add coverage by the New York Times, Washington Post, and a Seattle newspaper of her nomination, rather than arguing that the closer made a mistake, which they did not.
  - The closer was right not to count at all the Speedy Keep, which is very seldom correct, and usually means, "I don't like this AFD and don't plan to be reasonable."
  - The proponents would be better off to improve the draft than to quarrel with the closer.

Robert McClenon (talk) 05:48, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support close I agree with Robert McClenon, there were arguments for both Keep and Draftiy and the only other conclusion I can see the closer coming to, as they weighed the consensus of this AFD discussion, is No consensus which seems to be an unsatisfying close to most people and I think might have still have brought us here to DRV. It's important to note that several editors advocating Draftify implied that this was a temporary article move and in time, the article would be back in main space once she was confirmed. Even though some editors have criticized the adequacy of the sources, no one was advocating Deletion of the article. In this instance the closer made a safe and understandable close and I might have chosen Draftify as well. I also agree with Robert that the article will be moved to main space quicker if time was spent improving the article rather than challenging an AFD close that, according to most parties, will only result in a temporary stay in Draft space. However, three different AFC reviewers have judged the article to not be ready for main space so I can't help thinking that rather than improving the Draft so it meets approval, DRV coiuld be seen as a shortcut.

I realize this is all an observation, not a policy-based argument but I don't think the two sides are really that far apart. Two or three more good sources that provide SIGCOV is probably all that is keeping this article in Draft space. Just a note though that the main space page is protected and will have to be unprotected when the article is accepted by AFC. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:49, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is I actually added two articles regarding her & cases she was involved in. They were rejected, presumably by somebody that wanted to keep their point of view the consensus so they can delete her page. The main issue here is consistency. President Biden has nominated 144 judicial nominees & only two are considered not notable. We even have past president's nominees that were never confirmed that have a Wikipedia page. I just don't see how a nominee for a lifetime federal judgeship is not considered notable. I will not understand that for the life of me. I advocate somehow getting the wording changed from Wikipedia to make an exclusion for judicial nominees, but I never got a response. That is the root problem. The wording allows some to question if a federal judicial nominee is notable & the point of many who advocated keeping her page (Just like 142 of the other 143 nominees) is there shouldn't even be a debate & the wording needs to be changed altogether.

MIAJudges (talk) 21:38, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind attaching them here? I think more than one of the commenters here could support the article w/ better sourcing. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:53, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the technicalities of Wikipedia policy, if the issue is just sourcing, keeping it in draft is counterproductive given that it seems that everyone agrees that sufficient sources exist. I would ordinarily be happy to work on the draft but due to its invisibility, the draft has received less work than comparable articles, and I don't see the point of editing an article that has been hijacked by the Wikipedia bureaucracy. I don't know what bad luck this article had to get snagged but once an article has been sucked into this process, it seems very hard to get it out, so it's not worth anyone's while. I also linked nine articles above, though some are in paywalled legal publications so they may not be useful to you. Iowalaw2 (talk) 13:42, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as a reasonable reading of the discussion. I probably would have closed as no consensus, but this close was well within the typical range of discretion we afford closers. It is clear to me than the subject is likely to have a page, but the current sourcing is weak. This is, in my opinion, entirely a function of: (1) her age - mid 30s is very young for a federal judge, and it looks like she's only been a partner in her law firm since 2018 and (2) the U.S. president's expressed desire to nominate people from less traditional walks of the legal profession, which in her case means the subject has not attracted the attention that a lawyer of her apparent stature normally would receive. I'm almost tempted to be pragmatic and just put the page in main space, but while it looks like she cleared the Senate's judiciary committee, I don't see that she's scheduled for hearing by the full Senate, and at this point she's looking at a lame duck session after the election. If control of the Senate flips she may never take the bench. All of this is speculation of course, but that lack of certainty is precisely why I cannot agree that the article should be in main space. Finally, let me echo others in saying that if we can get better sourcing addressing her as she is now - an attorney, not a jurist - notability would be established. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:50, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming this is a good faith worry about Senate process, Senate votes on nominees are only scheduled a week or so in advance, and the consensus in the world of confirmation watchers seems to be that nominees who have already made it through committee face no real risk of not being confirmed. Iowalaw2 (talk) 13:52, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus Much of the "delete" rationale is based on the false premise that not passing an SNG supercedes passing GNG, which is not the case. Frank Anchor 14:17, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Xymmax

I added the two articles over a half a year ago & since the article is locked out, I can’t go back into the history to show you the articles. I didn’t save them, but I remember one of the main users that were arguing for taking her page down said I can’t add them. If her article can be reinstated, I will be more than happy to do the research & find them, & likely other notable cases to add to her page.

MIAJudges (talk) 14:38, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For those concerned she is not notable because it has taken her so long to be confirmed, just as a reminder there are nominees who have been pending for a final vote longer the her. For instance, Dale Ho was nominated September 20th of last year & still needs a discharge vote (Do to him being tied in the judiciary committee) then a final confirmation vote. Tiffany only needs the one confirmation vote so she is much closer to confirmation then he is, and Dale Ho is from the majority leaders home state who scheduled the senate votes. Furthermore, doesn’t the president of the United States releasing an announcement on The White House website announcing he is nominating somebody to a lifetime position to the federal judiciary enough to make them notable. In the announcement, the president describes numerous achievements the person has obtained as well. In addition, she has statements from her two home state senators praising her nomination & she testified in front of the senate judiciary committee. I’m just not understanding how that alone isn’t notable enough for a Wikipedia page.

MIAJudges (talk) 14:47, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse (involved). All of the draftify/delete comments mentioned that the subject did not pass WP:GNG: "Fails WP:GNG," "There is no WP:GNG at the moment," "WP:GNG must be passed. It's far too soon," "these are only passing mentions," "Nominees must meet WP:GNG with multiple independent, reliable sources." Curbon7 describes 17 sources, and suggests that none of them meet the requirement of significant coverage, with minimal pushback. I do not agree with any SALTing of the title, as I think there is an expectation there will be additional RS coverage of the subject. --Enos733 (talk) 14:59, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many more sources have been posted on this thread, which you can read for yourself. I posted nine additional articles from reliable sources above. There is more than enough to write an article without original research, which is the significant coverage standard, especially combined with the sources previously linked such as the extensive Judiciary Committee questionnaire. Iowalaw2 (talk) 13:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are nominees who can go years and multiple Congresses before they are ultimately confirmed. They have articles published without issue. For some reason this nominee has been singled out for different treatment. Such treatment doesn't make sense. I fail to understand the logic behind deleting articles and locking them as opposed to promoting the spread of information about an individual nominated for a prestigious post. Valadius (talk) 15:01, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's really not rocket science. Without the confirmed nomination, the subject does not meet the Wikipedia General Notability Guideline - WP:GNG. If she is confirmed, she is presumed notable, even if she doesn't otherwise conform with the usual standard of notability - WP:GNG. Absent her confirmation, she is not otherwise notable. There's quite a lot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT going on around here, IMHO. The Wikipedia General Notability Guideline is quite clear - and you do NOT have to be a lawyer with N years' experience at the bar to judge compliance with that particular standard. I do think that some of the incredibly experienced lawyers around here could use a quiet reading of this Wikipedia guideline - 'law' that perhaps doesn't map naturally to their view of 'order'... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:13, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Despite your rudeness throughout this thread towards those who disagree with you, you have not given an actual explanation of your position, which I find very confusing. GNG is presumed when there is "significant coverage in reliable sources," such that "no original research is needed to extract the content." That standard is obviously met here, like it is for all similar nominees, which is why this issue has not come up in the entire history of judicial nominations on Wikipedia as far as anyone can tell and why all of us are so baffled. There is no per se rule that nominees are not notable, but you seem to support one. Iowalaw2 (talk) 13:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the two articles I mentioned above describing two high profile cases she was involved in before her nomination, here are FOUR articles about her that were all written since her nomination just to show as the user above mentioned. It is reasonable to assume more articles will be written about her, meeting the standard to allows her to have a Wikipedia page.

1. (https://vettingroom.org/2022/03/24/tiffany-cartwright/)

2.(https://www.afj.org/document/tiffany-m-cartwright-fact-sheet/)

3.(https://ballsandstrikes.org/nominees/tiffany-cartwright/)

4.(https://civilrights.org/resource/support-the-confirmation-of-tiffany-cartwright-to-the-u-s-district-court-for-the-western-district-of-washington/)

MIAJudges (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While deletion review may be a place to discuss whether "significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page," none of these four sources meet our expectations for RS coverage. Vetting Room - "legal blog dedicated to discussing, examining, and analyzing judicial nominations" (Possibly significant, not a new source since the deletion discussion), Alliance for Justice - advocacy group, Balls and Strikes - "sponsored by Demand Justice, a nonprofit organization that works on court reform efforts," Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights - open letter supporting nomination, also advocacy organization. There is nothing wrong with these sources, but they are not likely to be judged as reliable sources - Enos733 (talk) 15:58, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the blog is unacceptable as a source... JoelleJay (talk) 06:18, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moot since you've included them here @MIAJudges. But just a quick note, the history is at the Draft, which is open for editing and you should be able to see your contributions. It may be that we need a history merge, but I don't think so. The benefit of having the draft is that when Cartwright is notable (whether confirmation, this DRV or otherwise), all of the attribution/contributions remain. Let me know if you need more information. Star Mississippi 16:15, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I was able to find the three notable cases I tried to add in the history. Here they are, all three removed by somebody trying to advocate she wasn’t notable.

1. (https://apnews.com/article/ba24abde58bc4aa68b34e53fe0a218e3)

2. (https://apnews.com/article/520b11f714974fa9bd0049bf61f1388d)

3. (https://apnews.com/article/homicide-trials-lawsuits-crime-seattle-8d1faeceb47ef33b0cc8469ebcf762f1)

MIAJudges (talk) 16:54, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexandermcnabb

I respectfully & completely disagree. I too think it’s not rocket science but in the opposite view point. President Biden has nominated 144 people to be federal judges. He has confirmed 84 which means 60 have not been confirmed. Out of the 60, 2 have their Wikipedia pages locked out because they are not notable. One, Jorge Rodriguez nomination is on hold because the judge he was going to replace has since withdrawn his retirement plans.

The other is Tiffany Cartwright. She has been voted out of the senate judiciary committee & is pending a confirmation vote. There are others from the group of 60 that have not even had a senate judiciary committee hearing yet. In addition, there are numerous news articles written about her, I have put ire then a handful of them just on this conversation thread alone. Some of her cases have been major news stories. Plus, when you look at the Wikipedia verbiage, it states that you can consider somebody notable if there is a reasonable expectation that they will have additional news coverage. So between the inconsistencies between this one nominee being singled out compared to the other 58 waiting for confirmation, whether you consider the numerous news articles about her or the fact that she was nominated by the president of the USA for a lifetime seat on the federal judiciary & had a hearing in front of the senate judiciary committee, I too think it’s not rocket science.

MIAJudges (talk) 16:52, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'Respectfully' (And, in English idiom, 'with the greatest respect' generally means 'I am about to be rude to you'...), her cases really, really don't matter. They don't make her notable. I could be the stoker on the Mallard, one of the most notable steam trains in history, but that role doesn't make me inherently notable - notability, in Wikipedia, is WP:NOTINHERITED. The 'Wikipedia verbiage' you refer to is a bunch of guidelines reached through consensus by a community - you might even call that 'verbiage' something that guides people's conduct, social relationships and behaviours - oh, let's call it 'law'. The 'reasonable expectation' that someone would be notable - presumed notable - defined by that 'verbiage/consensus/law' is when they become a CONFIRMED JUDGE. Until that point, any notability depends on the General Notability Guideline - WP:GNG. It doesn't matter whether she's the 58th duck in line to get in the pond - she.is.not.notable.right.now. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Litigated cases with reliable news coverage are relevant to the notability of an attorney. Your point is confusing and I would encourage you to explain more and insult less. Iowalaw2 (talk) 13:34, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexandermcnabb

I am not sure what "With all due respect" generally means, but as I stated for me it means I disagree with you but respectfully. Now on to your points. Going by what you said, there was no clear consensus that she was not notable. As you can see by this thread, there seems to be more people that disagree with your viewpoint then agree with it so if anything, I would say the consensus is the article should have remained. And I know it may not matter to you when it comes to her being the 58th duck in line, but there simply is no consistency in removing her page when there are 58 other nominees who have not been confirmed yet with pages. It even makes less sense when many of those nominees haven't even had a hearing, let alone senate judiciary committee vote to send their nominations t the senate floor to await a confirmation vote, which is where her confirmation is at. Nobody still after all this time has been able to explain to me why they are notable but she is not. Now let's go point by point in the Wikipedia guidelines.

1. "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. - She will have increased significant coverage because she will be marked up for a confirmation vote after the senate finishes their six-week recess. Plus, her rulings over the next few decades will have significant coverage as well. 2. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant - I already included 3 news articles with significant civil rights cases that she was the attorney for. That's just 3 cases I tried to include on her page but it was locked out but there are others. 3. "Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. - The articles are from reliable news outlets from the state of Washington.

I guess the best question for you is what else (Besides her confirmation) does she need to be as notable as the other 58 Biden judicial nominees with Wikipedia page? I will gladly find them so we can get consensus.

MIAJudges (talk) 18:17, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the votes (and remember this isn't a 'vote' - the closer will look at policy, not numbers necessarily) - I count five for and five against. As to notability, as stated above she is not otherwise notable - perhaps the other 58 are? In any case, WP:NEXIST - that other things are is not a case for this thing to be. Whether people have had hearings or not has nothing to do with this specific article. However many cases she was attorney for counts nothing towards her notability - as I stated above. In fact, I'm repeating myself and I'm not sure I'm getting across so Imma stop and let others weigh in - I've stated my case. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:39, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexandermcnabb

So I guess we need to figure out the next step. I strongly disagree she is not notable. And no, I can assure you the other 58 are not all more notable than she is. I do not see how multiple articles about major civil rights cases that she argued & have been reported on in numerous news articles do not count towards her being notable. I'm sorry but your argument does not seem to be consistent with the case that allows the other 58 to be notable. Also, I still have not seen how she does not meet #1. "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. I am not trying to be hard & honestly when other users usually have a difference of option, I tend to defer but what you are saying just is not showing me how she is not notable. I would like to appeal this. I know other users that are more seasoned when it comes to Wikipedia & passionate about the judiciary probably know what steps to take next such as @Snickers2686 & @Star Garnet so any advice they have I would be happy to escalate.

MIAJudges (talk) 05:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I very, very strongly advise MIAJudges to review WP:WALLOFTEXT and WP:BLUDGEON, and focus far more on quality than quantity of argument. Stifle (talk) 08:44, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.