Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hillary Clinton Supreme Court candidates


 * 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. (non-admin closure) &mdash; Music1201  talk  21:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton Supreme Court candidates

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An article on potential nominations to the US Supreme Court by Hillary Clinton is speculative. This article should be created if Mrs. Clinton is actually elected.

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." Since the President-elect is not yet known, we do not know whether that person would ever be able to nominate a Supreme Court justice.

Those who disagree with me will likely point out that the same policy states: "As an exception, even highly speculative articles about events that may or may not occur far in the future might be appropriate, where coverage in reliable sources is sufficient." I recognize and appreciate the author's (mainly BD2412) efforts to include references, but Mrs. Clinton has not released an official list of candidates she would nominate. From the same policy: "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content."

In contrast, Donald Trump has released a list of people that he would nominate to the Supreme Court, if he were to be elected. Since Mr. Trump has released a list, while Mrs. Clinton has not, I am not combining this AfD with Donald Trump Supreme Court candidates. I do not nominate Donald Trump Supreme Court candidates for deletion at this time, as I'd like to focus on this discussion first. (WP:MULTIAFD: "for group nominations it is often a good idea to only list one article at afd and see how it goes, before listing an entire group.") Others may nominate that article for deletion, if they are interested.

Regards -- Edge3 (talk) 01:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is exactly the kind of sourcing used for the articles that have previously been created for George W. Bush Supreme Court candidates and Barack Obama Supreme Court candidates, both created before either subject actually nominated anyone to the Supreme Court. As in these cases, reliable sources have indicated who is likely to be considered by the candidates. The only difference is that the election has not been held yet, but there is already a vacancy on the Supreme Court, so there is no question of whether there will be at least one nominee, whether they succeed or not. bd2412  T 01:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. The Obama article was created on November 7, 2008, three days after the election. (Coincidentally, the article was created by you! Thanks for your contribution to that article also.) I wouldn't say "there is no question" of whether the next President will fill the Scalia vacancy. Theoretically, that vacancy could be filled anytime before the next President takes office, for whatever reason that may motivate the Republican Senators to act. Edge3 (talk) 01:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * As a practical matter there is no question. If Trump is elected, they won't go forward; if Clinton is elected, they won't go forward without her saying so. Either way, there are reliable sources stating who a Clinton nominee would be based on the knowledge of experts in the field. Note that the fact that Trump released a list of potential nominees during the primaries is hardly a guarantee that he would nominate a judge from that list, either. bd2412  T 01:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * By the way, we have an article on Jimmy Carter Supreme Court candidates. Of course, Carter never got to appoint anyone, but there were still candidates discussed. bd2412  T 02:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd like to pose a hypothetical situation (which actually has been mentioned in the news as a possibility). Suppose that Clinton wins the election. The Republicans may decide to approve the Garland nomination before Obama's term expires, rather than risk Clinton nominating a more liberal justice. In this situation, Garland would be considered an Obama appointee, not a Clinton appointee. At that point, this article (in its current form) would cover a Scalia vacancy that never occurred during a Clinton administration. Edge3 (talk) 02:09, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It would still be a historical fact that several high-level reliable sources chose to write about who Clinton would appoint to the Scalia vacancy. To a degree, these discussions are generic. If the Scalia seat is filled, the same group of judges (minus Garland) would be considered Clinton's likely picks for the next vacancy to open. This remains true even if Clinton, like Carter, were never to have an appointment to fill. bd2412  T 02:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 01:13, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 01:13, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity 02:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, as the nominator rightly points out. What it is is an encyclopedia, and this article is very much an encyclopedic one. Hillary Clinton is a leading candidate for President, and one of the most crucial responsibilities of that role is to nominate justices to the Supreme Court -- so speculation about who she would nominate is unquestionably notable. The nominator points out that Clinton has not officially released a list of nominees -- this is fine, because that list would constitute a primary source. Wikipedia's concern is with secondary sources, and this article is chock full of reliable secondary sources. This article is exactly the sort of thing that a general reader will value immensely in 20 years (whether or not Clinton wins the election in November), especially because the Trump campaign has sought to make Supreme Court appointments a key issue.  A  Train ''talk 10:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly notable, well-sourced, and will continue to be notable whether or not Clinton wins the election. Smartyllama (talk) 15:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep If Trump's list is ok, so is this one.  Nevermore27  (talk) 02:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I was actually about to nominate the Trump article also, but decided not to bundle the AfDs since there were enough differences between both lists. I'm not arguing that the Trump list is okay, but rather that I'm not submitting an AfD at this time. Edge3 (talk) 02:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll quickly add that due to the growing "Keep" consensus here, I'm not likely to nominate the Trump article for deletion, unless the outcome of this discussion drastically changes. But I advise you to consider Other stuff exists, and that the lack of AfD for the Trump article shouldn't affect the outcome of an AfD for the Clinton article. Edge3 (talk) 02:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. "Speculation over potential nominations" (subject of this page as defined in the 1st phrase) is not an Encyclopedia subject. Yes, other crap exists. My very best wishes (talk) 04:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * We have an entire article on Speculation. The distinction is that it is not our speculation, but that of reliable sources. If we didn't include that in an encyclopedia, we wouldn't have any articles in the area of theoretical physics. bd2412  T 04:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * We even have a special policy about this. It tells: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." It's not certain. My very best wishes (talk) 04:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTALBALL has come up a couple of times now, so let me specifically rebut that argument. That policy states unequivocally that "[p]redictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included[.]" The sources for the article in question include the two most prominent newspapers in the United States (The New York Times and The Washington Post) and the journal of the American Bar Association. Clearly these represent "expert sources". The WP:GNG demands depth of coverage, and these sources aren't articles that mention the subject in passing, they are entirely devoted to the subject. Therefore the article complies entirely with the demands of WP:CRYSTALBALL and the general notability guideline.
 * But moreover, the spirit of CRYSTALBALL is to keep original research and personal essays out of the encyclopedia. The article passes that test, too: there isn't one iota of original speculation in the article, it's just reporting speculation from experts as a tertiary source, which is the essence of what Wikipedia is. None of this is crap, as User:My very best wishes terms it. It's content of great historical interest, especially because Trump's campaign has made Supreme Court appointments a particular point of contention in this election.
 * Let me make an analogy here -- and not for the purpose of pointing out that other stuff exists, but simply to help frame this issue. We have an article for 2024 Summer Olympics. The 2024 Games may never come to pass, and we don't even know what city will host them yet because the campaigns are still in progress. But if you look at the reference section for that article, it's enormous. That's because a huge amount has been written about the cities who are campaigning to host the games. Only one of the four cities will win the right to host the games, but all four of the campaigns are encyclopedic content, win or lose.  A  Train ''talk 10:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Clinton said that if elected she will nominate new unnamed judge(s). But this this something almost every new president does. I fail to see how this trivial matter is significant. By comparison, planning new Olympic games (which occur well in advance) is indeed something significant. Note that panning new Olympic games takes place right now and therefore represent current, not a future event. My very best wishes (talk) 13:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * With all respect, if you can say that appointing Supreme Court justices is a "trivial matter", then I think you're revealing how unfamiliar you are with the subject being discussed.  A  Train ''talk 13:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This is not really about appointment of new judges, but about a presidential candidate saying that she will appoint some unnamed judges if elected. Yes, I think this is a trivial matter. My very best wishes (talk) 14:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The fact that you keep referring to them as "judges" rather than "Justices" (virtually all Justices are already judges) is a bit disconcerting. Such an appointment is more than merely speculative: there is an existing vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court, which is now split 4-4. The nomination of the next Justice will be of enormous consequence, even if that appointment is blocked perpetually. That is precisely why high level sources are reporting on this issue. bd2412  T 15:36, 7 September 2016 (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.