Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama Supreme Court candidates (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Wizardman 15:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama Supreme Court candidates
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball or indiscriminate collection of information. "Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate." Opening sentence of the article: "Speculation has begun to take shape over potential nominations." Case closed. Keep verifiable speculation on potential nominees' biographical articles until such time a nomination is actually made. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC) Delete per nom. Speculation-based. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  -- Madcoverboy (talk) 17:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions.  -- Madcoverboy (talk) 17:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  -- Madcoverboy (talk) 17:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- Madcoverboy (talk) 17:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.  -- Madcoverboy (talk) 17:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Nothing more than speculation from different sites as to who they think could be nominated.  TJ   Spyke   18:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep From WP:CRYSTAL: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented." It seems there definitely is well documented speculation on potential Supreme Court appointments. Tim  meh  !  19:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep- As Timmeh points out, the first exception to WP:CRYSTAL applies here. This is a notable event for which the speculation is well documented. We're not the ones doing the speculation, the press is. We're just here to document THEIR speculation. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because it is verifiable doesn't imply it is notable enough for encyclopedic coverage. Assert facts, not opinions and substantiate the basis for any claims. There are absolutely no facts to assert but for repetition of biographical details because there has only been speculation by these outlets. There is absolutely no article to write until a nomination is made. Madcoverboy (talk) 20:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, WP:CRYSTAL does not apply here at all because this article documents an event that has already happened, namely that reliable sources have reported the opinions of experts as to who the likely candidates are. No one is clamoring to delete 2009 NFL season just because we don't know what teams will make the playoffs (although we will surely note when ESPN or SI makes their preseason picks). bd2412  T 21:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Per Timmeh and Umbralcorax.  Also noting that there are a lot of things in this article that are well-referenced, have already happened and are not WP:CRYSTAL at all - especially President Obama's statements about his judicial nomination philosophy.  --Philosopher Let us reason together. 22:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Great, put "President Obama's statements about his judicial nomination philosophy" under Political positions of Barack Obama. This article is nothing but an indiscriminate list of jurists based upon speculation and will have to be completely rewritten anyway the moment a nomination is announced. Moreover, this article is currently a link farm of idle speculation with no substantive, reliable, or authoritative facts. Madcoverboy (talk) 22:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * First, it's much to long to shoehorn into the existing "political positions" article. Second, it will not have to be "completely rewritten" when a nomination is announced. Some nominations fail (see Robert Bork) or are withdrawn (see Harriet Miers). Furthermore, even after Obama leaves office, it will still be a reliably sourced fact that the current list captures the collection of people that many experts on the subject thought likely to be considered for the Court - see George W. Bush Supreme Court candidates for comparison. bd2412  T 01:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 *  Strong Keep - Per Timmeh. Gage (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Why do some people keep missing the distinction here?  As the first AfD noted, this is a sourced article *about* speculation.  Speculation by a random Wikipedia editor?  Bad.  Speculation by the Washington Post?  Fine. SnowFire (talk) 00:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per keep comments above. Some confusion about the scope and nature of the article may be a result of its name, although I can't quickly think of a better one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep  The article is well documented with reliable sources. At this point we should be talking about fixing and updating the article not deletion. -- J mundo 02:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This article does not meet the deletion standards of WP:CRYSTAL as pointed out by several editors. Well-sourced articles around speculation for an impending event clears the bar. JakeZ (talk) 02:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, per "keep" comments above. Additionally, the nomination for deletion itself seems to concede that speculation in the current article would be warranted the "time a nomination is actually made."  That event is imminent.  Souter has announced his retirement and the White House has announced plans to nominate someone in time for confirmation by the start of the next Supreme Court term. An official short list is floating around and journalists have their sources.  We're past the point of idle speculation. Billyboy01 (talk) 03:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete with no prejudice for recreation when needed. Wikipedia should take a historical perspective when writing articles. Until Obama actually nominates someone for the Court, this article is about media speculation. It's a news story, not a topic for an encyclopedia. WP:NOTNEWS. -Atmoz (talk) 05:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The speculation here is well sourced to political commentators. WP:CRYSTAL applies to speculation coming from crystal balls (i.e. made-up speculation without any root), not to well-reasoned speculation found in reliable sources. Sjakkalle (Check!)  05:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is not really an article about future events (who will be the Supreme Court nominee), but about present events (who the press thinks is eligible to be appointed). Mike Serfas (talk) 06:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, now that Justice David Souter has announced his retirement, the possibility that Barack Obama will appoint a Supreme Court Justice has become a reality and a current ongoing event permissable for coverage on Wikipedia just like the similar article covering George W. Bush Supreme Court candidates. --TommyBoy (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete, and the sooner the better. It's hard to believe there's even a discussion about it, much less that it wasn't deleted immediately. This entry is purely newspaper/magazine quality - what amounts to nothing more than media speculation. Even then it's of only middling quality, but its quality as a news media story is irrelevant for the purposes of an encyclopedia. Its encyclopedic relevance is already dated and will become more so each day. It could not be more inappropriate for Wikipedia. Maybe Wikinews, if there is such a thing - and even that would be just more of what every news media outlet in the country is already doing. Again, I have to wonder why the editors haven't deleted it already. Wlegro (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This does not qualify under WP:CRYSTAL because this is not about speculation over whether there will be a Supreme Court nomination, this is an article covering the nomination process that is currently beginning and the candidates involved. It should be renamed, however, possibly to List of Candidates Suggested to Replace David Souter in the United States Supreme Court. Eauhomme (talk) 19:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I think that WP:CRYSTAL does apply (it is still speculative whether Obama will actually nominate a new justice, it's just incredibly likely). Keep per User:Timmeh above. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 21:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete on WP:NOTNEWS grounds. In 10 years this article will not mean very much, except for documenting a certain way that things were in 2009.  That's a good definition of news to me.  Gigs (talk) 01:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ten years? Really? See John F. Kennedy Supreme Court candidates, Lyndon B. Johnson Supreme Court candidates, Richard Nixon Supreme Court candidates, Gerald Ford Supreme Court candidates, etc., all the way through to this one (and, as we progress, going further back as well). bd2412  T 01:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The exploration of how Presidents select Supreme Court (and to a lesser extent, lower-court) nominees is an extremely important part of the legal history of the Court. The genre probably started with Danelski's A Supreme Court Justice Is Appointed, which discussed President Harding's selection of Pierce Butler over other candidates (notably Martin Manton) in 1922, and has continued unabated to this day. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be opposed to this article 100 days after Obama leaves office, which would be a similar situation to the GWB equivalent. Right now it's just very dated speculation.  Gigs (talk) 14:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So presumably you'd be in favor of only creating the articles Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination, George W. Bush Supreme Court candidates, etc. now? This is...  a fair enough criterion which reduces to the "stability" criteron for Featured Articles, but, Wikipedia has not set that standard for non-FA articles.  For one blatant example, the Iraq War article won't be stable for a long time, I imagine, but we nevertheless have it and countless subarticles anyway. SnowFire (talk) 22:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: I agree with User:TommyBoy, this article should be dealt with like George W. Bush Supreme Court candidates. --bender235 (talk) 10:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, strongly. I'm regularly surprised how few people understand what CRYSTAL means -- it certainly does *not* mean we shouldn't write about future events. — Nightstallion 16:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, strongly:This article documents an important process in American government: the appointment of a Supreme Court justice. As the Supreme Court of the United States is the final arbiter of many of the finer points of American law, to ignore the process of choosing its individual members seems myopic. By comparing the various articles on Supreme Court appointments (George W. Bush Supreme Court candidates, Bill Clinton Supreme Court candidates, etc.), an interested student can see how the process proceeds through the politics of each generation. This is history, not just current events. BoBo (talk) 22:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, when the entire appointment process is completed, it will have documented the event. --DangApricot (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge into article about the confirmation process of the eventual nominee after he or she is named.Bigturtle (talk) 23:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And if there are multiple nominees or later vacancies? In any event, the extensive documentation of all the prospective candidates who don't make it will be rather out of place in an article on the one that does. Also, this article is one in a well-developed series. bd2412  T 04:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: I fail to see how this article can be deleted on the basis of speculation as it merely lists the candidates for President Obama to choose from. Speculation argument would be fitted if this article said for certain which person would fill Soulter's seat... (Tigerghost (talk) 18:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC))
 * You're asserting a distinction without a difference. There has been no authoritative, reliable facts released about any candidate. This article only exists to speculate on "which person [will] fill [Souter]'s seat". Madcoverboy (talk) 19:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * But not for us to speculate. Speculation is being carried out by experts in the field, and we merely report on what they think. bd2412  T 19:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The article isn't even reporting on what these "experts" think, it's just a place-holder link farm of American jurists and citations to various sources. Thus, the article serves no actual purpose but serving as a collection of speculation. Based upon every precedent article (e.g., George W. Bush Supreme Court candidates), there is (rightfully) absolutely no discussion of the speculation (journalistic, scholarly, or otherwise) leading up to the nomination itself. This article is a completely inappropriate collection of speculation without any substantiable factual basis which perfectly fulfills WP:CRYSTAL which so many users seem to misinterpret. Until such time a nomination is officially announced, there can be no notable, reliable, or verifiable basis to justify this article. Madcoverboy (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Further precedent: Primary campaign article created February 2, 2007 only after official announcement; Presidential campaign article created June 10, 2008 only after presumptive clinching of nomination. There was a frenzy of media speculation before each data and Wikipedia rightfully did not indulge in it no matter how pervasive this "verifiable" this speculation (thus, necessarily unreliable) was. Why is it so controversial to wait until the nomination is actually made to write this article instead of emulating the baseless media-frenzy of speculation? Madcoverboy (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (de-indent) Except that's not what happened at all. The Presidential campaign article was a split for length purposes; the "primary campaign" article was moved as before it had covered both the primary and the general campaign for Obama (and yes, it was covering Obama's strategy for the general even then).  And Obama was mentioned as a possible candidate in a list in the main 2008 Presidential campaign article before he declared; see this revision from 7 days after the 2004 election.  To compare apples to apples, you are basically asking to delete that list from the old 2008 campaign article if it'd been split off as its own page.  (Amusingly enough, that old list is barely referenced, which would be a problem, though Obama's entry is referenced- as him not being interested!  This list IS referenced, so whatever.) SnowFire (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (Addendum: A better analogy for your "The Obama campaign article was only split out when it became official!" example would be someone making an article "Nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court." That WOULD be premature until she's officially nominated.) SnowFire (talk) 22:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You haven't refuted anything. The article histories plainly show that no article about Barack Obama's presidential actions predated the official announcement of his candidacy. Likewise, you ignored my other argument that no other article about previous Presidents' nominations has such a mindless laundry list of speculation. Nor does this article even attempt to explain the cited justifications for why any one of these speculative nominees is "in the running". I see no reason why a different standard should suddenly hold now in violation of WP:CRYSTAL and/or WP:IINFO as well as WP:RS. Amusingly enough, the example revision you cite asserting that Obama will not be entering the 2008 race is precisely the reason why Wikipedia should not indulge in the mindless and unsubstantiable speculation of the rest of the equally-uninformed political press. But to answer your rhetorical question about such a scenario: yes, I would have nominated the hypothetically spun-out article about 2008 candidates for deletion back in 2004.
 * Likewise, that United States presidential election, 2012 contains a list of speculative candidates does not particularly concern me since the event itself is historically well-demarcated and stable with regards to dates, nominating processes, precedents, electoral college makeup, political parties, etc. There are no such assurances or procedural stability with a Supreme Court candidate nomination: no dates have been set for announcements, there are no certanties with regard to filling the spot, and of course the confirmation process is almost sure to be a rollercoaster with constituencies to be satisficed, surprises in vetting, partisan defections & blocs, legislative maneuvering, etc. There can be no encyclopedia article written about a topic which not only has not occurred but has not even a presumption of well-defined boundaries that can be outlined in advance. If Obama nominates tomorrow, then all my objections are moot. Otherwise, take this embarassment down. Madcoverboy (talk) 01:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you not seen George W. Bush Supreme Court candidates? Other articles in the series are less developed in this regard because the information is less well preserved. bd2412  T 02:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a different between having an indiscriminate list citing baseless speculation and a coherent article describing a historical occurrence. To fulfill WP:CRYSTAL, this article would need to at a minimum use reliable sources to outline the "prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur". There are no such prospects at this juncture because there has not even been a nomination. Here's another guideline quote for the closing admin to chew over from WP:RS: "While the reporting of rumors has a news value, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should only include information verified by reliable sources. Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors." There is nothing to verify but for the fact that political pundits are speculating. Let the political pundit spout their gossip, rumours, and speculation elsewhere: we are an encyclopedia that privileges reliable and verifiable information. This article will be written in the future, but it is far too premature and entirely inappropriate at this stage. Madcoverboy (talk) 04:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of the points you raise are strong arguments for why this article needs to be cleaned up, but just because you toss in some superlatives does not make your case for deletion any stronger. If a particular reference is truly "baseless speculation" then it should be removed. But some of the references are news reports from reliable media outlets where journalists (not merely pundits) have reported names that have originated with the White House. Kagan, Wood, Sotomayor, Sullivan, Wardlaw, Ward Sears and a few others have been floated by knowledgeable sources and are genuine BHO Supreme Court candidates. This will still have been true even if Obama completes his presidency w/o actually nominating anyone. That said, some of the names in the article clearly don't belong on the list. The references listed for Revesz, Klobuchar, and Minow, for example, seem to be unsourced speculation. And Gregoire's "reference" is a reader comment on a webpage. Those and similarly unsourced names should be purged, but that's hardly a justification for temporarily deleting the whole page. Billyboy01 (talk) 08:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per JakeZ, it is not crystal, it has begun already and the article will be updated accordinly as it continues. - Epson291 (talk) 07:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely keep, part of the historic record. Neutralitytalk 08:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S.: Note papabile and list of papabili in the 2005 papal conclave. Neutralitytalk 08:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely keep. As you can see from the history of the [George W. Bush Supreme Court candidates] article, it began in 2004 before there was even an open seat on the Court, as a listing of potential candidates to such a seat. That list of potential candidates has been retained in the most recent version of the article, in order provide a historical record of who was previously under consideration. Such lists are very useful for researchers; for example, someone writing about the representation of women among possible nominees by George H.W. Bush versus his son George W. would find such lists invaluable, even though both presidents ultimately had only male judges confirmed for the Court. Or for a debate occurring right now about whether only women candidates for the Court are having their weight assessed with regard to their longevity: a list of possible nominees from George W. would provide a starting point to know who those were and then to compare whether overweight male candidate received similar media treatment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.130.221.86 (talk) 19:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, per Timmeh, Umbralcorax and others. Krakatoa (talk) 04:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, per Timmeh and the WP:CRYSTAL page. It is also worth considering that the Obama administration itself has started vetting particular candidates; he has a positive shortlist. This article is not indiscriminate or primary speculation, just current event coverage.  -- The_socialist talk? 09:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.