Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Ross Haywood

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 Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Ross Haywood[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)

Subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:JUDGE as a failed judicial nominee. Being a assistant United States attorney does not correlate to someone meeting the notability requirements. A redirect to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies seems reasonable. Let'srun (talk) 02:25, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Law, and Pennsylvania. Let'srun (talk) 02:25, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning toward redirect to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies as WP:ATD, but won't bold my !vote because ProQuest is down right now. —siro χ o 02:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & redirect per the results of the numerous similar AfD's on judicial nominees, as article creator. Safiel (talk) 05:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Much of the article is copyvio from a news article published a few hours before this one was created. I'm surprised it wasn't called out in 7 years. Maybe I'm wrong? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:59, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No copyvio exists. The papers themselves were regurgitating word for word from the official White House announcement, which obviously is in the public domain. Not going to bother restoring the deleted information since this article is getting deleted anyhow, but there is zero need for redaction. Safiel (talk) 06:35, 5 November 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.