Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies


 * 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. Consensus is that the article in question does not violate Wikipedia's policies on either neutral point of view or content forks and that the article should be kept. In addition, the standard practice is to have a separate article for the controversies. While some editors believe the content would be better displayed when merged with List of federal judges appointed by Donald Trump, others disagree and no consensus to merge has emerged here. If the nominator or another editor still believes this to be the case, further discussion should take place on the article's talk page.  Malinaccier ( talk ) 01:08, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:POVFORK and WP:SYNTH — JFG talk 16:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment -- Seems a tiny topic. Why not merge it with Trump nominees who have withdrawn. As to the successfully appointed ones, the article is POV. ALL nominees are the topic of argument, some less than others. Rhadow (talk) 17:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep -- There is precedent for such an article with previous administrations and/or judicial nominees. Being as some of Trump's nominees HAVE withdrawn and/or drawn controversy, I see no reason why this article shouldn't exist. Snickers2686 (talk) 17:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Paging:         – Snickers2686 (talk) 18:10, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * why did you canvass these editors?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:35, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Said editors have had some part in creating, maintaining and updating articles regarding the federal judiciary and any nomination/nominee articles contained herein as well. Snickers2686 (talk) 19:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I work a lot on the Trump judicial appointments article along with articles on judges appointed by him. I think it's fair to say that can bring a relevant AFD to my attention. – JocularJellyfish TalkContribs 02:13, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong keep -- We have similar articles for all Presidents from LBJ going forward. There are undoubtedly be more controversies as Trump's administration proceeds. This is not a POV Fork and clearly the previous articles in this series are not POV forks either. Also, I don't think either Mateer or Talley have FORMALLY withdrawn yet, that would only happen when Trump submits a message to the Senate withdrawing their nominations. Safiel (talk) 18:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That is true, Mateer and Talley's withdraws have not been formerly submitted based on the Congressional Record. Maybe I jumped the gun a little bit on that one, however I did add a Note to clarify for the time being. Snickers2686 (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Judicial appointment controversies are their own series of articles going all the way back to Lyndon Johnson judicial appointment controversies. They have a particular community of interest, and a significance apart from appointment controversies in the temporary offices of the executive branch. bd2412  T 18:31, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've never commented on one of these before, but no question it should be kept. This is not a malicious article against Trump. Failed and stalled nominees for myriad reasons arise during every modern presidential administration and deserve to be documented. JaredDLarsen (talk) 20:12, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge- with List of federal judges appointed by Donald Trump (perhaps renaming "Donald Trump judicial appointments") In interest of following precedent, its easy to say keep. It seems we have a similar article for all recent presidents. However, I don't really think those articles are necessary either. --Rusf10 (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Right. I was not aware of the similar articles for other presidents when sending this one to AfD. However, all such articles are by essence WP:POVFORKs and possibly WP:SYNTH (unless several RS have addressed such nominees collectively as controversial). I would recommend merging all those articles to their respective "Judicial Appointments by President X" articles. — JFG talk 23:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * But not all appointments are confirmed, such as Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination which was eventually withdrawn and the same with Merrick Garland Supreme Court nomination which expired at the end of the Presidential term. Thus they were nominated, but not appointed. So I don't see how a merger would correct the problem when the above said individuals had merit in their own right and the nominations themselves were significant events. Snickers2686 (talk) 00:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * In some cases, controversies have arisen over people who were announced as forthcoming nominees, but never even formally nominated. bd2412  T 03:16, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete and Merge. This article has no purpose and should be deleted, as should the others. Instead, there should be an AfD discussion for all ten articles. If the other articles in this series are kept, this article should be kept, however. Theoallen1 (talk) 00:23, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - As noted above, there are similar pages for Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies, George W. Bush judicial appointment controversies, etc. There's an entire category for them. Shelbystripes (talk) 00:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - The List of federal judges appointed by Donald Trump is just what's in the title: a list. This format has been used for all 44 people who have served as President of the United States. Controversy articles for recent presidents like George W. Bush and Barack Obama have also been created. The important thing to note is that those articles are separate. Someone else has already brought this up, but the title of the aforementioned article refers to appointments by Donald Trump. Controversies (and some of them don't result in appointments, in the cases of Jeff Mateer and Brett Talley) are separate from a list of appointments and should remain separate. I support keeping the article. – JocularJellyfish TalkContribs 02:13, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I sympathize with your comment and appreciate your work on those articles. Note that the "controversy" articles are also structured as lists, with section headings such as "List of failed, stalled or filibustered appellate nominees", followed by a list of people under bullet points (see a full example at Obama's page). Such sections could very well appear in the main article about judicial appointments by each president. The overall theme is "Judicial appointments by President X", and I don't see the point of separating the list of successful appointments from the list of failed or contested appointments. Quite the opposite: a global view of appointments in a single article would be more informative to our readers. All it takes is a merge and a title change. — JFG talk 08:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * First, if List of federal judges appointed by Barack Obama (131k) and Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies (66k) were a single page, it would be appropriate to split out the latter topic over their current respective lengths. I don't expect Trump's articles to be much shorter than these, as both are constantly growing. If length is not an issue, I would suggest as a counter-proposal that it makes just as much sense to merge Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies into Presidency of Barack Obama, and to merge Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies into Presidency of Donald Trump.
 * Second, failed nominations are not appointments, under the law, period. This is actually a dispute that we have had at times at WikiProject United States Courts and Judges with editors who do not understand the order of procedure involved. A person is first nominated by the President, then approved by the Senate, then formally appointed by the President when the approved nominee receives his (or her) commission. A person who is never considered by the Senate is never appointed except under the rare circumstance of a recess appointment (not a recess nomination), which falls within specific constitutional limitations. This is why judicial nominees, unlike certain executive branch nominees, don't go about the job (in their case sitting on the courts hearing cases) while waiting for the Senate to act on their nomination. Failed nominees have no place in a list of appointments, and their inclusion would contribute to the existing confusion over these different stations. bd2412  T 14:14, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, I understand the nomination/confirmation/appointment process. Call the page "Judicial nominations by President X" and call it a day. You can even argue that people who were expected to be nominated, but weren't because of some controversy, could still be included on such a page. — JFG talk 18:20, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * These things are separate. The list of appointees is a list of names, in a table, with parameters of information. The list of controversies is a narrative explaining why specific nominations ran into trouble - who objected, what was the basis of this rejection, how did it play out. Some controversies result in successful appointments, for which we have the same person discussed in two different contexts. The relevant WikiProject has seen fit to treat these respective lists in two different ways, and to give readers access to specifically what they are looking for in each case. It seems like most of us want to keep it that way. bd2412  T 18:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep: We have Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies, George W. Bush judicial appointment controversies, and so on, so I don't see why a similar article for Trump shouldn't exist as well. Marquardtika (talk) 03:11, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment – A lot of the opinions expressed here boil down to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which is not in and of itself a valid reason to keep an article. All of those "controversy" articles should be merged with the matching president's "appointments" articles. — JFG talk 08:23, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have just explained above that "nominations" and "appointments" are two different steps in the process, and that mashing these lists together would create further confusion about their roles. This is not a mess you want to make. This is also not WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; this is WP:Some stuff exists for a reason. bd2412  T 14:17, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep but possibly rename. There's definitely a need for an article/list on Trump's non-confirmed judicial appointments; I don't think a merge to List of federal judges appointed by Donald Trump would be beneficial.  Whether filibusters or other "controversies" should be included is questionable. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 22:15, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Reply I think that this article will contain all withdrawn nominees. George W. Bush's article has people like Miguel Estrada so I think it's fair to say the project will list people like Brett Talley and others. I don't really see a need to add another article in addition to this one for that reason. – JocularJellyfish TalkContribs 14:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm referring specifically to including Gorsuch here. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 03:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Significant in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources; part of established series. Possible renaming or mergers can be discussed separately. Neutralitytalk 23:44, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. The precedent from articles about Bush and Obama nomination controversies should satisfy the question of whether or not this article ought to exist. It may need editing, but the existence of the article should not be problematic. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 01:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you think this is a good precedence? I think we need to revisit the other articles too. I don't think this is really a POV issue, just a poor organization of information into separate articles that could be one.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * We could take that line of reasoning to the extreme and just merge this into Donald Trump. However, sometimes there is a reason for things to be the way they are. bd2412  T 03:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - Good redirect target for the eventually spate of NOTNEWS individual controversy articles. Carrite (talk) 19:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Lots of sources available; similar articles exist for at least 3 other presidents. Brad  v  22:59, 22 December 2017 (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.