Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama 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. The overwhelming notability and coverage of Barack Obama, along with the notability of the US Supreme Court, tends to trump other good-faith worries about this topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama Supreme Court candidates

Pure speculation. Thiseach (talk) 07:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an article about one of the most highly notable phenomena of "speculation" to occur in politics. As with George W. Bush Supreme Court candidates (which was a very well developed article long before Bush was faced with any actual vacancies on the court), we have copious references to discussions from serious and respected news sources putting forth specific names (some with great regularity) as likely Obama Supreme Court candidates. The speculation is not by Wikipedia editors, but by journalists for the Wall Street Journal, Chicago Tribune, Washington Post, and the like. bd2412 T 08:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- While there is an equivalent George W. Bush article, it was only created once Rehnquist's health had started to fail, and the Bush administration would have been giving the matter serious consideration. Reports were based not just on speculation, but presumably on reliable inside sources. Obama has not even been sworn in yet, let alone embarked on any type of search process.--Thiseach (talk) 14:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It doesn't matter who is doing the speculating. We don't list musical albums that are speculations either even if they're done by reliable sources. None of it can be confirmed. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But we have an article on speculation itself. That's the point - in the case of potential Supreme Court Justices, the speculation itself is notable. bd2412 T 14:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment -- "We don't list musical albums that are speculations either"? Category:Upcoming albums would seem to disagree with you there. JulesH (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Is it speculation? Maybe. But speculation on the part of numerous cited reliable sources, not on the part of the article's creator. That makes it a notable topic in my book and (I'm assuming) Wikipedia's. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If we don't allow speculations by reliable sources, we can't have any articles on any future events. WP:FUTURE specifically says that "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." Quickly looking over this page, I didn't see anything that was unsourced; and if there was, it can easily be removed. With the many sources that this article has, it's obviously possible to reference the topic of this article, and as such plainly fulfills all our criteria. Nyttend (talk) 16:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nyttend. --Explodicle (T/C) 18:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nyttend said it all for me. — neuro^(talk) 19:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Another ditto per Nyttend. 23skidoo (talk) 20:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Speculation about Obama's possible cadidates might belong on Wikinews, but it is not an encyclopedia article, even if thoroughly referenced. Aleta ^Sing 20:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just because the media speculates wildly about anything doesn't mean that the subject is suitable for an encyclopedia. This is just a list of people collected because someone thought that, should Barack Obama have the opportunity to appoint a Supreme Court Justice (which he might not), he might appoint these people (or he might not). By my reckoning, this violates point 1 of WP:FUTURE. There might be some way to retool things to make this article into list of people considered to be potential Obama administration Supreme Court nominees, but even that is sketchy. gnfnrf (talk) 22:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see anyone complaining about Presidential transition of Barack Obama#Appointment speculation, which sets forth a variety of possible picks for various cabinet positions. This is very similar, except much more thoroughly referenced and of much greater import. I can't imagine that anyone would dispute that a Supreme Court Justice, with a lifetime appointment (which in this day and age could easily translate to 30+ years) and no boss to answer to, is far more important than any cabinet officer. That's why the candidates are always asked about their potential Supreme Court appointments in the debates (no one asked Obama who his Secretary of Labor might be, or even what kind of Attorney General or Secretary of State he might pick. bd2412 T 23:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  - But we know that Barack Obama will pick a Cabinet, and we know when (at least, to within a few months). We don't know if Barack Obama will ever pick a Supreme Court Justice at all. We don't know when. We don't know anything. We are randomly speculating that a Justice will die or retire, and saying, if that were to happen, what might happen next? Sure, other people have written about it, but just because other sources speculate doesn't mean that the result is encyclopedic. gnfnrf (talk) 03:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I thoroughly agree with bd2412 T and Nyttend (talk). Since the article is thoroughly sourced, I see no problem with its discussion of future events. This isn't a willy-nilly discussion of unverifiable opinions. As bd2412 T accurately points out, the George W. Bush Supreme Court candidates article was already flushed out before Bush actually made any nominations. How is this article any different? Why complain now? I also think this article accurately represents an important issue that was often discussed during the 2008 presidential election: what type of Supreme Court nominee would Obama appoint? To say the topic is not newsworthy fails to acknowledge the active interest of both political parties, average American voters and the press in the subject. Wikipedia should not bury its head in the sand. As long as the article accurately represents the public discussion of possible Obama nominees, what is the problem? BoBo (talk) 01:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If this article is just so much unnewsworthy idle speculation, why would someone write an article like this? The panel that developed the list in this article includes such respected legal minds as:
  - Thomas Goldstein, head of the Supreme Court practice for Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld
  - David Yalof, associate professor of political science at the University of Connecticut
  - Cass Sunstein, University of Chicago Law School professor and Obama advisor
  - Charles Ogletree, Harvard Law School professor and Obama advisor
  - Lucas A. Powe Jr., Supreme Court historian at the University of Texas School of Law
  - Robert A. Levy, chair of the Cato Institute.
- I don't think a group like this would encourage idle, useless conversation. BoBo (talk) 02:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I (personally) don't think it's idle or unnewsworthy. But I don't think it's encyclopedic, either. Wikipedia is not for news. It's an encyclopedia. Consider this. Jimmy Carter never appointed a Supreme Court Justice. But at the beginning of his term, he might have. Should Wikipedia include an article about who he would have appointed, if he had the chance? I don't think so, because any speculation was just speculation having never come to pass. And for Barack Obama, we don't know that he will. We might think so. We might have a pretty strong hunch that he will. But we don't know. gnfnrf (talk) 03:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Even if Obama never gets to appoint a Justice (which is highly, highly unlikely given the history of Justices resigning in time to allow an ideologically sympathetic President pick their replacement), the discussion is notable as a snapshot of who are the judges and other officials thought fit by Court experts to be probable appointees at this point in American history. bd2412 T 04:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete - There are no reliable sources about candidates for Supreme Court for an administration not in power for openings that do not exist. DreamGuy (talk) 19:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Of course there are reliable sources. Plenty of reliable sources are discussing this subject. Article has 31 references, most of them to sources that are on this very same topic and are reliable. JulesH (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It would be one thing if a page were created for a John McCain or an Al Gore or a John Kerry or a Bob Dole administration, since those presidential administrations will never exist and therefore will never be in power. However, it's obvious that Barack Obama will be the next president, and it's also obvious that the Supreme Court of the United States is one of the single biggest marks that a president can leave from a legacy standpoint. (It's not like this article is Barack Obama Secretary of Health and Human Services candidates, for instance.) And with an 88-year-old justice, another in lousy health and another widely reported to be disgruntled, it's reasonable to expect that a thorough online encyclopedia would contain a thoughtful list of possible candidates, raised solely by experts in a position to know and published in respected news sources with outstanding reporting. With all due respect, this is hardly "pure speculation." And there are plenty of reliable sources, including those quoted in these articles who have direct ties to the Obama administration, like Cass Sunstein. This article easily meets point 1 of WP:FUTURE, since a Barack Obama Supreme Court vacancy is indisputably notable, and that a Barack Obama Supreme Court vacancy is almost certain to occur during his presidency. Wikipedia should be prepared for such an occurrence, which is why this article was created. What an atrocious misapplication of policy. Jarvishunt (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Speculation without any foundation. He's not even President yet.—Markles 00:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reliable sources are discussing this; it's appropriate and encyclopedic for us to summarize their conclusions. It would be inappropriate for us to say "Obama will nominate So-and-so", but it's entirely appropriate for us to say "Scholars and commentators have mentioned So-and-so, Such-and-such and Thingummybob as possible nominees," with citations to said scholars and commentators. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even if Obama does not ever nominate someone to the Supreme Court, it makes sense to have an article on the potential picks of a president to the highest judicial office in the land. This is especially so given the plentiful media speculation on Obama's picks, which is driven by the fact that he almost certainly will have to nominate someone at some point. Reflecting this is hardly a bad idea. Johnleemk | Talk 07:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.