Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Potential nominees to the Supreme Court of the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - non consensus (16 delete, 8 keep, 1 merge, 1 invalid merge and delete) - SimonP 21:16, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
Speculation. RickK 08:13, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. True, there is some speculation but the article is somewhat informative and of interest. Sjakkalle 09:22, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Speculation. However interesting it might be, it doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia. (perhaps Wikinews?) --bainer 12:07, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - It's well sourced speculation. - SimonP 12:19, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Are we going to delete Higgs boson because it's speculation? --Etimbo | Talk 12:45, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. What will we do when Rehnquist retires or dies? This kind of information will go stale quickly. If we let this one in, we'd have to put up pages that track current speculation on who will become the next "whatever" (President of the USA, of Zimbabwe, Vice Governor of the Czech National Bank, etc. etc. ad nauseum). When I want this kind of information, I go to a news or political analysis site, not an encyclopedia. Information in an encyclopedia should not be ephemeral. (Remember, paper encyclopedias used to be updated only once a year.) --Smithfarm
- Delete and merge content to a
new section in Supreme Court of the United Statesnew article called U.S. Supreme Court nominations, to include info on how it's done and current speculation. While the article may be interesting and informative the title gives no grounding in time, it would have to be blanked and re-created every time there is the possibility of a seat opening up. -- Lochaber 14:03, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC) - Delete, easily dated and Wikipedia is not a news/gossip service. Gazpacho 14:17, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Agree with Lochaber, and merge. Radiant_* 15:27, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and Cleanup for the following reasons, which combine to make this a notable discussion:
- The current Court has been intact and unchanged for a longer period than any Supreme Court in over a century;
- Chief Justice Rehnquist has become an iconic figure, and will leave very big shoes to fill;
- Throughout the history of the Court, there have only been 16 Chief Justices, so they do not come and go very often. This article should consider not only who may fill the vacant seat, but also who will become the next Chief Justice {Scalia? O'Connor? Thomas? Someone from off the Court?);
- The process of appointing Justices has become particularly politicized since Roe v. Wade, which has lead to rampant speculation as to who may succeed Rehnquist dating back to the 2000 election campaign.
--BD2412 20:17, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- On second thought, move all of this to an article on Potential nominees to replace Chief Justice Rehnquist on the Supreme Court of the United States --BD2412 20:19, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- ok, that looks awful... well, keep it as something, maybe Potential 2005 nominees to the Supreme Court of the United States, and redirect everything else to it. --BD2412 20:21, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- (See my comment below first) Either of these titles would be better however:
- We don't know that Chief Justice Rehnquist will be the next to go. Any one of them could have a heart attack tomorrow.
- Even if Chief Justice Rehnquist is the next to go we don't know that it will definitely be this year.
- -- Lochaber 11:50, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- (See my comment below first) Either of these titles would be better however:
- ok, that looks awful... well, keep it as something, maybe Potential 2005 nominees to the Supreme Court of the United States, and redirect everything else to it. --BD2412 20:21, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- On second thought, move all of this to an article on Potential nominees to replace Chief Justice Rehnquist on the Supreme Court of the United States --BD2412 20:19, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, speculation, has a short life-span anyway. Lacrimosus 21:42, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, wikipedia is not a crystal ball--nixie 22:06, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Speculation. Information dates quickly. DaveTheRed 23:10, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Speculation. Maybe move to WikiNews if they want it. Rossami (talk) 23:22, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Speculation and therefore non-encyclopedic. Besides this article will largely be irrelevent once the position is filled. Rje 01:14, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
- I disagree. If that is the case, we should delete U.S. presidential election, 2008, because it is currently speculative, and will be irrelevant once the position is filled (indeed, the same argument could be made for every presidential election that has already passed) - except that it's not merely speculative because we know there will be an election, who is likely in the pool of candidates, and what concerns are likely to drive the vote; and it won't be irrelevant once it is over because it is a piece of American history. This is a very similar situation - the likely candidates and the issues that will drive the selection are known, and whoever gets selected, it will mark an historic point in the history of the court. --BD2412 03:05, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I disagree with your analogy. U.S. presidential election, 2008 will not be irrelevent when the position is filled, because we can still have an encyclopedic article on the subject of the election. However, once the next Supreme court justice is chosen, it will be will be useless to keep an article on the process that went into choosing that justice. Furthermore, speculating on an election, a huge event that follows a rigid process and schedule, is vastly different then speculation on the appointment of a justice, which could happen at any time and will happen according to the whim of the President. DaveTheRed 04:38, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- The opinion on the existence of U.S. presidential election, 2008 is fairly clear in Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Speculation is well documented so the article can be kept. My main problem is with the title (see my comment above) and the article is hard to title because it is not clear when the appointment will be made, unlike the US presidential election which is virtually certain to take place in 2008 (I'm not up on US election procedures, could possibly happen earlier or later in extreme circumstances?). That said IMO this speculation is documented well enough to be included, just not under a seperate title hence my vote for delete this particular article and merge content to Supreme Court of the United States -- Lochaber 11:50, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Well, seeing as how Rehnquist's illness sparked dozens of television and newspaper reports over possible successor appointments, how about an article on Supreme Court appointment hysteria? Seriously, though, I think the unusual intensity of coverage of this issue (based in no small part of the factors I listed above) marks a rare phenomenon worthy of its own article, once we can agree on a title. -- 8^D gab 12:14, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
- Ok here's another idea. How about creating a new article called U.S. Supreme Court nomination, about how it's done and all (I know it's not really that complicated but there could be more detail about why confirmation isn't as easy as it sounds) with a section called maybe "Speculation on possible George W Bush nominations" or something. As a section the title can easily be changed / updated and new sections can be added when further speculation comes up in the future. -- Lochaber 13:21, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Well, seeing as how Rehnquist's illness sparked dozens of television and newspaper reports over possible successor appointments, how about an article on Supreme Court appointment hysteria? Seriously, though, I think the unusual intensity of coverage of this issue (based in no small part of the factors I listed above) marks a rare phenomenon worthy of its own article, once we can agree on a title. -- 8^D gab 12:14, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
- The opinion on the existence of U.S. presidential election, 2008 is fairly clear in Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Speculation is well documented so the article can be kept. My main problem is with the title (see my comment above) and the article is hard to title because it is not clear when the appointment will be made, unlike the US presidential election which is virtually certain to take place in 2008 (I'm not up on US election procedures, could possibly happen earlier or later in extreme circumstances?). That said IMO this speculation is documented well enough to be included, just not under a seperate title hence my vote for delete this particular article and merge content to Supreme Court of the United States -- Lochaber 11:50, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I disagree with your analogy. U.S. presidential election, 2008 will not be irrelevent when the position is filled, because we can still have an encyclopedic article on the subject of the election. However, once the next Supreme court justice is chosen, it will be will be useless to keep an article on the process that went into choosing that justice. Furthermore, speculating on an election, a huge event that follows a rigid process and schedule, is vastly different then speculation on the appointment of a justice, which could happen at any time and will happen according to the whim of the President. DaveTheRed 04:38, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I disagree. If that is the case, we should delete U.S. presidential election, 2008, because it is currently speculative, and will be irrelevant once the position is filled (indeed, the same argument could be made for every presidential election that has already passed) - except that it's not merely speculative because we know there will be an election, who is likely in the pool of candidates, and what concerns are likely to drive the vote; and it won't be irrelevant once it is over because it is a piece of American history. This is a very similar situation - the likely candidates and the issues that will drive the selection are known, and whoever gets selected, it will mark an historic point in the history of the court. --BD2412 03:05, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete in agreement with Radiant!. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Angr 08:16, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Speculation. Jayjg (talk) 18:58, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Speculation. Every citizen of the U.S. is a potential nominee. -Willmcw 00:16, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Again, same thing could be said of U.S. presidential election, 2008 - every U.S. citizen who will be over 35 as of Jan. 20, 2009 is a potential future president (hey, that includes me!) But there is a manageable list of serious candidates, and so there is for the Court - the nominee will be someone who a) has the proper experience to be realistically confirmed by the Senate (almost certainly a sitting federal appellate judge, state supreme court judge, U.S. Senator, or a person in a high-level position of legal counsel to the executive branch) and b) someone who falls within the appointing president's ideological stream of thought. Just as the pundits are probably on the mark when they project who will run for president, they are similarly on the mark to suggest who will likely be the next Supreme Court nominee. By the way, fun fact: nothing in the Constitution requires Supreme Court Justices to be U.S. citizens. -- 8^D gab 03:46, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)
- So the potential list is in the billions. There is no specific date range, so this article could include potential nominees dating back to the nineteenth century. If a listing of the most frequently-named , current candidates is needed, it can be included in the main article on the court. Further, I dispute your asertion of the accuracy of pundits. -Willmcw 19:18, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Again, same thing could be said of U.S. presidential election, 2008 - every U.S. citizen who will be over 35 as of Jan. 20, 2009 is a potential future president (hey, that includes me!) But there is a manageable list of serious candidates, and so there is for the Court - the nominee will be someone who a) has the proper experience to be realistically confirmed by the Senate (almost certainly a sitting federal appellate judge, state supreme court judge, U.S. Senator, or a person in a high-level position of legal counsel to the executive branch) and b) someone who falls within the appointing president's ideological stream of thought. Just as the pundits are probably on the mark when they project who will run for president, they are similarly on the mark to suggest who will likely be the next Supreme Court nominee. By the way, fun fact: nothing in the Constitution requires Supreme Court Justices to be U.S. citizens. -- 8^D gab 03:46, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)
- Delete, courtcruft. ComCat 05:27, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, Speculation until actual process starts. kaal 04:49, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - Very informative to know who the leading lights in conservative jurisprudence are right now. --New Progressive 02:13, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Then an article on Conservative jurisprudence would be useful. This is not that article. RickK 08:07, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, if the article is substantiated by quotes from news agencies. Ethereal 15:29, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, speculation - Wikipedia is not a fortune teller. Megan1967 03:28, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Highly speculatory, and to the extent that this is an accurate window into what Bush is thinking, only relevant for a brief time. Postdlf 03:55, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep -- a good resource and well-cited, so shouldn't be considered speculation. We do this for U.S. presidential elections in the future. -- Jewbacca 02:04, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Informative but speculatory. You could get a well-cited report on any number of things, but it wouldn't make them encyclopedic.--66.56.42.131 02:44, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC) (a.k.a. Fermatprime, but I'm too lazy to sign in.)
- Keep - Even after the chief justice steps down, there will still be plenty of interest in Supreme Court appointments due to other potential retirements. It's an informative page, and no different from the 2008 presidential election page in speculatory nature. --WikiAce 20:37, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Except that the 2008 election is a predetermined event—it will happen in 2008. It is true that more appointments to the Supreme Court will necessarily be made, but no one knows when this will be, or even who will be replaced, however likely Rehnquist is. Furthermore, candidacy for president is self-motivated and entails overt acts years in advance on the part of the hopefuls. The analogy is not a strong one. Postdlf 23:34, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.