Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Raymar

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 Bill Clinton judicial appointment controversies. Opinions are split. There is consensus to not keep the article, but not consensus to delete it. This is the compromise. Content may be merged from history per editorial discretion. Sandstein 19:06, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Raymar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Unelected official (fails WP:NPOL), no significant coverage (fails WP:GNG), previously nominated for deletion in 2008 and closed as no consensus due to confusion. Failed judicial nominees typically aren't notable. Redditaddict69 ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:46, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:46, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:46, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nothing stated here hands him an automatic inclusion freebie just for existing, but this is based entirely on primary sources that do not count as valid support for notability. If he could be shown to pass WP:GNG, then this would be a different matter — but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass GNG on the sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 16:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose' I find that nominees to the several circuit courts of appeals are always signficant, regardless of media coverage, because that such nominations tend to greatly reflect the policies of the President of the United States and of the United States Senate, considering that confirmation hearings are most usually conducted. Furthermore, proper coverage could possibly be found in the records of the United States Senate. 71.91.178.54 (talk) 01:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• This one may merely require better sourcing. (There is a weird thing where President Clinton nominates Raymar, then decides to give the judgeship to the sister of his pal Donald Trump, instead. politics is stranger than fiction.) Alternative merge target is Bill Clinton judicial appointment controversies.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:29, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Former deputy attorney general of New Jersey and was the subject of a major tussle of the upper house of a national legislature. Jarvishunt (talk) 11:00, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no policy that says this makes him notable. No Deputy State AGs are notable (fails WP:NPOL) – and what "major tussle"? All that happened was the GOP didn't want an impeached president to have a nomination go through. Redditaddict69 ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:50, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge (selective) to Bill Clinton judicial appointment controversies. While certainly interesting that this confirmation hearing was never held (as is the anecdote that Maryanne Trump Barry was actually appointed) - this is a BLP1E situation with not that much coverage. The subject of this article does come close to having SIGCOV. It is also not much of a tussle - the Senate Judiciary Committee simply didn't schedule a hearing. Icewhiz (talk) 09:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• NOM COMMENT -- Support Redirect (or merge) per above Redditaddict69 ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:35, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• selective merge to Bill Clinton judicial appointment controversies. Made time to run some pretty thorough searches, concluded that: the appointment thing happened, it got covered then and since, but there is surprisingly little sourcing for any other aspect of his life or career.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - according to my standards, he passes. Bearian (talk) 00:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is a clear WP:GNG fail as it's currently sourced and due to a lack of sources existing, which isn't really discussed by keep voters. Three of the six sources are primary. The other three are deadlinks, don't mention him, or are behind a paywall I can't access, but the article appears to lump in several judges based on the article title. A before search brings up nothing I can see that would pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 02:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep His roles as a state official and a failed federal judicial nomination where his nomination was never considered, all of which is covered with sources in the article, with additional coverage in books (see here), newspapers and magazines using the links provided here, all establish notability per WP:GNG. Alansohn (talk) 16:21, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• He's barely mentioned in that book - three short paragraphs which feature two direct quotes. SportingFlyer talk 05:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- I don't see anything here that passes NPOL. State deputy AGs do not get auto-notability, neither do failed judicial nominees. Bill Clinton replacing this nominee with Trump's sister is just trivia.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete failed judicial nominees are not default notable, so there is nothing truly notable about Raymar.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:05, 24 September 2018 (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.