Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colm Connolly

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 keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colm Connolly

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

Just another US attorney who happened to prosecute a couple of not especially high profile cases. Mangoe (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I see potential for the article to be expanded. --Cutno (talk) 01:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. US Attorneys are notable, and generally have a relative abundance of sources. Rebecca (talk) 01:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a crappy article, because it stops keeping up with this guy's career as of a couple of years ago. He's a big deal in Delaware. Here's more references to get it up to date. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Edward Vielmetti (talk) 07:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All those links focus on him being a nominee. If he gets the post, OK, then I would agree, he would (by our IMO weak standards) be notable. THe final article suggests that this might not ever happen. Mangoe (talk) 11:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His notability isn't based around being a nominee for a judgeship, although that helps - it's around him being a US attorney, and a reasonably high-profile about that. We have good, well-sourced articles about plenty of US attorneys, precisely because they tend to be clearly notable. Rebecca (talk) 11:44, 26 January 2010 (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.