Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miguel Estrada: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Infrogmation (talk | contribs) |
m Robot - Removing extraneous links to old VfD templates. |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<div class="boilerplate" class="metadata" class="vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> |
|||
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. '''This page is no longer live.''' Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. <br >The result of the debate was '''keep'''. —[[User:Korath|Korath]] ([[User talk:Korath|Talk]]) 15:15, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
===[[Miguel Estrada]]=== |
===[[Miguel Estrada]]=== |
||
Lawyer. Article reads like a resume for jobhunting purposes. He has been assistant of a number of well-known offices, but hasn't himself reached a very notable position. [[User:Radiant!|Radiant!]] 11:47, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC) |
Lawyer. Article reads like a resume for jobhunting purposes. He has been assistant of a number of well-known offices, but hasn't himself reached a very notable position. [[User:Radiant!|Radiant!]] 11:47, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC) |
||
| Line 14: | Line 16: | ||
*'''Keep''' It's unlikely that we've heard the last of this guy. He's a "polarizing" person - you either love him or hate him, largely ( I suspect ) depending on your politics - so it's useful to the global community for us to provide a NPOV source of information. [[User:WMMartin|WMMartin]] 16:09, 4 March 2005 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''' It's unlikely that we've heard the last of this guy. He's a "polarizing" person - you either love him or hate him, largely ( I suspect ) depending on your politics - so it's useful to the global community for us to provide a NPOV source of information. [[User:WMMartin|WMMartin]] 16:09, 4 March 2005 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep'''. -- [[User:Infrogmation|Infrogmation]] 17:10, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
*'''Keep'''. -- [[User:Infrogmation|Infrogmation]] 17:10, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep''', hope those who didn't recognize the name are not from U.S. -- [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 07:19, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. '''Please do not edit this page'''. |
|||
</div > |
|||
Latest revision as of 04:42, 24 April 2006
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 15:15, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
Lawyer. Article reads like a resume for jobhunting purposes. He has been assistant of a number of well-known offices, but hasn't himself reached a very notable position. Radiant! 11:47, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, doesn't appear famous or particularly influential. Kappa 13:21, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)Keep after expansion Kappa 04:27, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)- Delete. Doesn't establish notability. Cnwb 22:23, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 00:22, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Weak keep, with qualms. Estrada is notable because he was nominated as a candidate for the D.C. Circuit of the Court of Appeals. (Associated Press reports via CNN: [1], [2]). Some believed he was being groomed as a potential Supreme Court nominee. Democrats filibustered his nomination vote—it's the first time in history a filibuster has been used to kill an appeals court nomination. The story was in and out of the news for about two years. The qualm(s): The article is essentially a cut and paste job from the cited 'source' at the bottom of the page [3]; that should be fixed. I don't know what the copyright status of this DOJ website is. I would guess public domain but we still should have something better than a resume. Failing to mention the nomination hearings is a woeful omission—it's probably the only reason he is notable. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 01:37, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Absolutely keep. Famous. Will update article. Meelar (talk) 02:40, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. This person is listed as a potential nominee for the Supreme Court. If this is deleted we may as well delete over half of all biographical articles. 129.177.61.124 08:04, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. His nomination as a Federal Court judge was one of the big US political issues of 2003. Likely to be nominated by the Bush administration when a Supreme Court vacancy takes place. Well done Meelar for expanding the article. Capitalistroadster 10:42, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Indeed the situation about him is still generating press ScottM 05:32, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep It's unlikely that we've heard the last of this guy. He's a "polarizing" person - you either love him or hate him, largely ( I suspect ) depending on your politics - so it's useful to the global community for us to provide a NPOV source of information. WMMartin 16:09, 4 March 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. -- Infrogmation 17:10, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, hope those who didn't recognize the name are not from U.S. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:19, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.