Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of current judges of the United States courts of appeals


 * 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. While there was a split opinion at the outset, the addition of transclusions seems to have resolved certain issues. There seems consensus that the ability to find these details in a single location vs the current 13 means that it is not a Redundant Fork. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 19:51, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

List of current judges of the United States courts of appeals

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I was just alerted about the existence of this article. We currently have List of articles for all the extant United States Court of Appeals and this really seems redundant and unnecessary. While I appreciate the effort of the creator, who is a new editor, this really wasn't needed and is not really helpful. Delete as redundant. Safiel (talk) 00:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Thanks,L3X1  ◊distænt write◊  00:44, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Thanks,L3X1  ◊distænt write◊  00:44, 13 October 2018 (UTC)


 * When you get a chance could you please link the articles you think this is duplicating? I can't seem to locate them. Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊  00:47, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
 * United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
 * United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
 * United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
 * United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 * United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
 * United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
 * United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
 * United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 * United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
 * United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
 * United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
 * United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
 * We already have numerous lists and templates for United States courts and judges. Every new thing added is something that must constantly be updated, so a point is reached when we must seriously consider what is useful and what is wasteful. Safiel (talk) 00:55, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are not technically in the list of format, but they serve the exact purpose. Safiel (talk) 00:56, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I was looking for a single article which is why I came up short. Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊  01:01, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Add Template:United States courts of appeals judges to that list. – JocularJellyfish TalkContribs 01:11, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete This page is redundant, as has already demonstrated, and is just another page that has to be kept up to date, with little resulting benefit. I appreciate the article creator's effort, but they would very helpful by contributing to existing pages in the Wikiproject. – JocularJellyfish TalkContribs 01:11, 13 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Upon further thought, I did what SHOULD have been done in the first place. I removed the tables and transcluded from our existing tables, thus eliminating the need to regularly update this article, should it continue to exist. Since the question of whether it is actually needed has not been substantially addressed, I will maintain my delete stance and let this AfD proceed. However, at least I have solved the problem of extra work, this article would require no further regular updating. Safiel (talk) 02:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment PLEASE READ - FROM THE ORGINAL CREATOR. I created this list because I was searching in vain for a list of all the appeals court judges in one location. The list exists nowhere on the internet (after a pretty thorough search). I was interested in a list because of the recent supreme court hoopla and many nominees come from the appeals courts. It's just convenient to have them in one place. It gives you a solid overview of the system visually. It allows you to quickly compare the courts. The data on the nominating president is critical because it gives you an idea of the ideological balance of the court and the appeals court as a whole. All that said, its become of a bit of a passion project and my introduction to being an editor on wikipedia. I've spent many hours on it even though the core data comes from the existing appeals courts pages. Updating it isnt bad at all. Once a month I go to the pages and bring the data to my main list. I'll add that the page is already seeing hundreds of views daily - some people are interested. I cannot see a good reason to delete the page. I appreciate your concern and for taking the time to adress some issues and for the past work you've done on wikipedia. But I'd really like to keep this page going. At the least maybe we can assess six months from now? Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nature mr allnut (talk • contribs) 05:26, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Wikipedia data is intentionally sorted in a variety of ways, for example alphabetically, by year, or by category. It is a shortcoming of the wiki's format that they cannot all be queried at once, but this is only because most of the time there is no use for such a massive query.  If you need a query of that nature, I would recommend wikidata, though it seems matching a judge to a jurisdiction is not trivial and may be impossible with the current scheme.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethanpet113 (talk • contribs) 07:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete as redundant. Template:United States courts of appeals judges and the "Current composition of the court" sections in the above-mentioned articles suffices. There does not need to be multiple lists that list the same thing.— Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 07:36, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:22, 13 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Leaning Keep While it is a fork of existing info, I would argue it is still useful because you can get all info in one place, rather than having to find and read 13 articles. As for the template, that has be kind of on the fence, but I know people don't always scroll down to the bottom to see that template. Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊  12:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, the nominator claims this is redundant...to 13 separate articles. That's obviously not functionally equivalent to having this information indexed in one place, and I can only see it as useful to the reader to organize those 13 separate sublists together in one list. We can see in one place how many currently serving judges for all the COA were appointed by each president, how many COAs have vacancies, etc. The delete !voters above also do not seem to question this, as they seem to have no issue with the template. Maintenance is not an argument for deletion here as the bench does not change so rapidly that it can't be kept up with. There is also no issue to having both a list and a navigational template cover the same content; see WP:NOTDUP. postdlf (talk) 13:58, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep The issue of UPDATING HAS BEEN FIXED. Since the data connects automatically to the 13 other pages, there is no need to ever update this page. The benefits are having 13 data sets in one place to quickly and more effectively compare. The downsides are none, except putting 4 kb of data on the wiki servers. IMHO there is no rational reason to delete this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nature mr allnut (talk • contribs) 15:19, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep A combined list seems fully appropriate to me. I like Safiel's rather clever transclusions and I'm pleased the article creator is happy with this approach. Thank you, both. Thincat (talk) 21:58, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Shifting from delete to keep as nominator I would withdraw and close this, but since there are active delete votes I cannot do that. Unfortunately, I did NOT think of the tranclusion option before I nominated this. With regular maintenance no longer required, the utility of this article now well exceeds the effort required to maintain it, which frankly was my main concern at the beginning. We are five days in on this AfD, only two days to wait for it to expire. Safiel (talk) 12:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Changing vote from Delete to Keep I made my original delete vote before Safiel's creative solution of transcluding tables took effect. Since the majority of the premise of my delete vote was based on the need to update another page, I don't see it as fair to keep my vote on this AfD the same. While I still have some reservations about how useful this article actually is, at this point I don't see any need for it to be deleted. – JocularJellyfish TalkContribs 22:29, 18 October 2018 (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.