Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people nominated to U.S. Supreme Court in last year of presidency


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  19:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

List of people nominated to U.S. Supreme Court in last year of presidency

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per WP:BLAR, "If editors cannot agree [about replacing the article with a redirect] the article should be submitted to Articles for Deletion." I don't think it should be deleted or replaced by a redirect, but User:SPECIFICO disagrees. Per WP:LISTN, this list meets notability requirements because it is "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." Moreover, merging this article into List of nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States would not be feasible because this list has unique columns (e.g. "Senate control" and "Last day of last term"), and anyway the text preceding this list would be bulky and distracting if merged into List of nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States. This is not a POV fork because it thoroughly describes the POV of Mazzone, and also clearly says that Mazzone's POV is disputed, so that the subject matter is dealt with in a very neutral way.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2016 November 13.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 02:40, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete (or merge/redirect to List of nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States). This is a WP:POVFORK, as reflected by the incomplete and misleading nature of the list. The list includes only nominations in the "last year of a president's last term" and omits nominations in the last year of any term (including a first term - which could of course be the "last term" for a president who isn't reelected), therefore shrinking the sample size (and distorting the numbers) for no real reason other than to push a political point of view. The list also excludes cases where the nomination occurred prior to the final year of a president's last term but Senate action continued into that last year &mdash; again, this shrinks the sample size and distorts the numbers. Recent scholarship confirms this. To the extent that the statistics and political back-and-forth are important, they can be included in List of nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States, Supreme Court of the United States, or Merrick Garland Supreme Court nomination. Neutralitytalk 14:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The list does not shrink the sample size at all. It does not omit nominations in the last year of a first term, if the President only served one term.  The only reason why the sources say this subject has stand-alone notability is because of attempts by the U.S. Senate to transfer nomination power from a president to his successor, and obviously the dividing line between a president's first and second terms does not mark any succession.  Yes, the list excludes cases where the vacancy or nomination occurred prior to the final year of a president's last term but Senate action continued into that last year, for several reasons: [1] the sources originally cited in this article did so, [2] the Garland nomination was not made prior to the final year of Obama's term, and [3] (as I just mentioned) the notability of this subject arises from the lateness of the vacancy whereas a vacancy before the last year is not so late (and therefore not as notable). Note: the "recent scholarship" cited by User:Neutrality is fully discussed and cited in the list as it stands now.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:01, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this is specious. (1) Inclusion if the President did, in fact, only serve one term still (a) substantially and arbitrarily reduces the sample size and (b) makes no sense because at the time of the delay, nobody could know a priori whether a sitting president would in fact be elected. (2) Your statement that "the notability of this subject arises from the lateness of the vacancy whereas a vacancy before the last year is not so late (and therefore not as notable)" is a tautology. As is true on the earlier point, this exclusion arbitrarily shrinks the sample size. (3) You rely almost entirely on Mazzone and perhaps one other source. There's absolutely no reason why these sources can't be discussed, in context in a broader article. Neutralitytalk 03:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This list obviously does not rely almost entirely on Mazzone, as Mazzone was not even cited until today. Months ago, before Mazzone was even available, the table was identical, except for a few notations to the "Notes" column.  I've already responded to your other statements.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:27, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. I am the nominator, but believe the list should be kept, for the reasons stated above in the nomination, and in my reply to User:Neutrality.  Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:11, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete and merge suitable content with List of nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States. As I explained on the article talk page, this is a POVFORK by, an unrepentent POV-pusher who is has been evading an Arbcom-imposed sanction related to editing abortion-related content, broadly defined, throughout the US political season this year.  SPECIFICO  talk  03:30, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * What SPECIFICO says is false, and he knows it's false, because I already proved to him it's false.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * au contraire.  SPECIFICO  talk  03:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Have you even bothered to verify the quote that I've now provided three times to you?Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:38, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete this is a POV fork, pure and simple. There is no need for this separate of the main list of SCOTUS nominations. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:27, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * User:TonyBallioni, I disagree. You haven't identified what the "POV" of this article is, because none exists.  The article fully balances the POVs of Nelson v. Mazzone.  It's telling that you're not suggesting to merge any of that into any other article, and instead want to just blank it.  You haven't given the slightest reason why this article should be deleted whereas similar articles should not (e.g. Unsuccessful nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States).  You haven't acknowledged that this list fully satisfies WP:LISTN as explained above, and includes material that currently exists in no other Wikipedia article (even aside from the stuff about Nelson and Mazzone, this article includes pertinent columns not found in any other article, plus information in the notes column that is unique to this article).Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I suggested deleting and not merging/redirecting because there is only one mainspace page that | links to this list, and I don't think that the page title is a likely search term, so deletion seems like the best option. As noted on the lists talk page, its pretty apparent that the article was created in reaction to the Garland nomination. I also agree with Neutrality that you shrink the sample size and that your sources can be discussed in the main article. Because those sources need to be balanced and based on the editing of this list will probably require future discussion to obtain a consensus on what should and shouldn't be included, I think the best option is to delete the POV fork and engage in a talk page discussion about expanding the main article. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, what is the POV that you think this article has? As for wikilinks to this list, I have just added it to the pertinent template.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note This diff is what created the sentence in WP:BLAR that started this AfD.  But IMO this is incompatible with WP:Deletion policy.  And because nominations are always !votes to delete, User:Anythingyouwant has !voted twice in this discussion.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:50, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Where is it stated that nominations are always !votes to delete?Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

AfD is for discussions that need admin tools. User  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   16:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Failing to see the "POV-pushing" here. It's an informative article that would not fit being merged, as stated above, due to the special extra columns. Deleting it would also lose the insights gained here. Less than half of year of presidency Supreme Court nominees have been confirmed, probably the precedent that was used to block the current nomination.Gatemansgc (talk) 20:37, 21 November 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.