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. Once we discard the assertive votes and strange influx of new users there is a clear consensus we don't keep this content. I'll draftify at the request of any established user. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:42, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Garnett[edit]

Margaret Garnett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

does not meet notability under WP:NPOL and is WP:TOOSOON since nominee has not been confirmed as a federal district court judge. Let'srun (talk) 18:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 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) 20:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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'srun (talk) 02:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Them not being inherently notable does not mean they aren't notable, though. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The directive states a nomination doesn't mean they are inherently notable but that does not mean the nominees aren't notable. You are trying to blanketly take down the pages of all nominees but there simply is no way a person can be nominated to an equal branch of government for a lifetime appointment by the leader of the executive branch without having a lengthy career & background. All of the nominees have references to their careers in the press. The president's own announcement details each of their bios. What you are trying to do goes against all Wikipedia precedent in this category.

MIAJudges (talk) 20:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep She and fellow presidential district court nominee Karoline Mehalchick both women and both with professorships in their resume, with a Brooklyn Law School professorship in the resume of Margaret Garnett.

I want to add that in terms of her professorship, [Notability for Academic Professionals] should apply: "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." All district court nominees are women with diverse backgrounds, and articles such as this one give insight for historians as to how President Biden selects judicial appointments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starlighsky (talk • contribs)

• Draftify: both keep votes above cite absolutely no reasoning based on policy. Currently the article has five sources, the first three [1] [2] [3] are not WP:SIGCOV, being passing mentions. [4] is not an independent secondary source, despite being a profile; the article subject works at Columbia. [5] is also not SIGCOV; the only mention of the subject is But the findings by Mr. O’Malley, who worked closely with a senior prosecutor, Margaret M. Garnett, would seem to raise serious questions about the convictions in Ms. Raymond’s killing because the Bronx prosecutor’s office relied on the same key witnesses and said the two murders were related. This doesn't mean that there won't be coverage or WP:JUDGE in the future; I expect there to be. As it stands, though, there's no basis in policy for this article to exist in mainspace. I'll note previous disputes over AfDs like this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiffany M. Cartwright; if draftified or deleted, I'd recommend considering salting. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 14:06, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The subject will likely be notable in the future, but isn't now, not even according to Wikipedia's fairly low notability thresholds. Some of the above comments suggest that this is really a booster/fan page, an indication consistent with some of the content of article itself, especially that the NYT reference is not actually entitled Garnett was instrumental in exonerating five people, but rather 5 Jailed in 95 Killing of Cabby Didnt Do It, U.S. Inquiry Says. 128.252.172.12 (talk) 18:10, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I just saw the misattribution of the NYT article myself, which was done by -- big surprise -- MIAJudges, whom I am quite comfortable with asserting is acting in bad faith in trying to mislead the participants here. [6] Such sources as are here are press releases, primary or namedrops, none of which meet the GNG. No objection to draftification. Ravenswing 06:27, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You can feel free to get quite uncomfortable with your assertion. I have made over 5,000 edits on Wikipedia & as I have said to you on multiple other deletion request, you need to stop with the mudslinging when somebody disagrees with your position. I called you out on the Jennifer L. Hall deletion request & on the main AFD. I'm done responding to you because every time I do I believe more & more you r not acting in good faith & I really do not want to believe that about anybody on Wikipedia.

  MIAJudges (talk) 03:53, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This does seem to do be your standard: kicking and flailing and doing everything but answer. You have consistently refused to state upon what explicit notability criteria on you base your judicial keeps. You have consistently refused to give any evidence whatsoever over your repeated charge that no article on a judicial nominee has ever been deleted. You have consistently refused to address concerns over your admission that this is an alternate user account. And you have persistently refused to provide answers over your falsification of a source's headline in this article.

  This is not "disagreement with your position." What is going on here is that you are engaging in dishonest behavior, and persistently displaying a "lack of interest in heeding others' legitimate concerns," as WP:NOTHERE puts it. The only mudslinging here is coming from your keyboard -- understandable, when that's the only response you can make that doesn't incriminate you -- and any time you'd like to stop, that would be welcome. You want me to stop? Then answer the questions. Disclose to one of the admins in the ANI thread what your real account is, and how you're in compliance with the policy governing alternate accounts. Present the evidence that no article on a judicial nominee has ever been deleted. Post links to the explicit criteria under which you're spamming your keep advocacy. Account for your falsification of that headline. Or admit that you really don't have a leg to stand on. Ravenswing 13:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  My only account in 2023 on Wikipedia is MIAJudges. Same as last year, the year before that, the year before that & for years now. I am not engaging in dishonest behavior regardless of how many times you repeatedly type it on your keyboard. Stop obsessing over me. As I have told you for an EIGTH straight day now this is not about ME. I have given my opinion repeatedly now. You have now engaged in attacking me so many times on so many different pages, other users are calling you out on other threads. You have become unhinged to be honest. Rarely if at all in the past week have I seen you reply with just opinions on the subject. I am only responding to you now because I happen to be updating pages & ran across yet ANOTHER BS attack by you. Log off the computer, go outside & breath. Your obsession on this subject & myself is frankly getting sickening. I have really tried to assume you were acting in good faith over the past week but no more. Try keeping my name out of your mouth for a day. You have failed for the past 8 days so maybe the 9th time will be a charm.

  MIAJudges (talk) 05:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify - I found multiple articles about her: [7][8][9][10]; the first is an interview & therefore lacks independence while the others are more focused on the departments she worked in than her. I think draftification until she is confirmed is the best option here. Hatman31 (talk) 20:36, 6 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!} 22:57, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepJoco179 (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

... would you care to proffer a policy-based rationale for that? Ravenswing 14:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Draftify Draftify per this discussion Snickers2686 (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - A review of the news coverage involving Garnett, dating to long before her federal judicial nomination, shows meaningful coverage in her role as the New York City DOI commissioner -- a role in which she was appointed by the then-mayor and confirmed by the City Council. (I took this from the Global Newsstream database; others can use LexisNexis to confirm.) Garnett was involved in numerous controversies that were well-covered by national news media, so I don't think this AfD is a close call. I also don't believe draftification makes sense here, but I do feel that this article could stand to be improved meaningfully with more sources and citations from the news coverage of her work over the years (with references to controversies she was a part of). I'd like to see someone take a stab at improving the article. So I'd favor a good-faith perspective from all that involves Keeping the article while editors work to improve it. Just my $0.02. Jarvishunt (talk) 06:58 12 July 2023
• Keep. Second everything Jarvishunt said - there seems to be enough coverage of her and her career in the NYT, Gothamist, etc. to satisfy notability. I'm pretty sure she passes WP:NPOL by being a local politician who received significant press coverage for both her time as commissioner of the New York City Department of Investigation and Deputy USA, S.D.N.Y. SDNY is arguably one of, if not the most important/influential federal district court - it's not like she's a deputy for the District of Idaho, whose U.S. Attorney doesn't even have a page. Kalethan (talk) 15:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:20, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify/Userfy Andre🚐 03:17, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  ...would you care to proffer a policy-based rationale for that? 73.209.8.138 (talk) 03:57, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  basically per the comments by Actively Disinterested and Snickers2686, and NOTBURO Andre🚐 06:10, 16 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.