Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:01, 24 June 2023

Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an improper list that rests on a synthetic/original premise. I was trying to figure out what to rename it to or how to preserve the content, but I couldn't come up with anything. I believe this is an original creation and a violation of our guidance on what makes a list. Andre🚐 20:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and United States of America. Andre🚐 20:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I brought this point up last week at Talk:Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies#What "controversies"?. It's the same problem with the other POTUS articles in Category:Federal judicial appointment controversies in the United States, an insufficiently discriminate page that isn't neutral. 21:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Keep, borderline speedy. Historically, most judicial nominations have been uncontroversial. These lists convey the range of circumstances that arise where there is some controversy arising in connection with a judicial appointment. Given that the United States has lifetime appointments for federal judges, and that these appointments are made by the President of the United States and must be confirmed by the United States Senate, these are high-stakes issues of broad public interest, and it is perfectly reasonable to document them accordingly. BD2412 T 21:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of these are called controversy by RS, so it's synthetic. They were contested, but they weren't necessarily controversial. It's a false consistency. Andre🚐 23:36, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying these were uncontroversially contested? BD2412 T 00:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, the new normal is for Republicans to contest judicial nominations just to be obstructionist and gum up the works. What's the source for it being controversy? A Joe Biden judicial appointment controversy? Why isn't that a total neologism? Andre🚐 01:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For a "new normal", there are a surprisingly small number of names out of the 136 Article III federal judges appointed by Biden. BD2412 T 01:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep possible WP:SNOW see George W. Bush judicial appointment controversies George H. W. Bush judicial appointment controversies Bill Clinton judicial appointment controversies etc —siro χ o 21:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that a parallel rename of all this type of article may be a good idea as "controversies" is a bit loaded. —siro χ o 21:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OSE Andre🚐 23:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Some stuff exists for a reason. BD2412 T 00:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that a rename would be ideal. "Controversies" is not the correct term. I would suggest "unsuccessful," but I do not think that term is quite correct either. --Enos733 (talk) 22:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I previously removed several listings but was reverted, with discussion begun at Talk:Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies#What constitutes a controversy?. This article should not be just any instance where any Republican made an objection or mere poor faith partisan politics. Rather it should cover actual controversies treated as such. If it cannot do that by trimming of less significant items, the article doesn't need to be kept. The article should also be trimmed of extraneous procedural details, such as who vacated the seat the person was nominated to and when, since that's rarely relevant a controversy. Reywas92^Talk 02:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:Some stuff exists for a reason Snickers2686 (talk) 03:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are enough reliable sources to establish notability. The OP should be briefed about WP:BEFORE.

95.12.119.26 (talk) 19:00, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 *'''Comment''' I previously [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joe_Biden_judicial_appointment_controversies&diff=1110026722&oldid=1110003410 removed several listings] but was reverted, with discussion begun at [[Talk:Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies#What constitutes a controversy?]]. This article should not be just any instance where any Republican made an objection or mere poor faith partisan politics. Rather it should cover ''actual'' controversies treated as such. If it cannot do that by trimming of less significant items, the article doesn't need to be kept. The article should also be trimmed of extraneous procedural details, such as who vacated the seat the person was nominated to and when, since that's rarely relevant a controversy. [[User:Reywas92|Reywas92]]<sup>[[User talk:Reywas92|Talk]]</sup> 02:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''' per [[WP:Some stuff exists for a reason]] [[User:Snickers2686|Snickers2686]] ([[User talk:Snickers2686|talk]]) 03:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
+*'''Keep''' There are enough reliable sources to establish notability. The OP should be briefed about [[WP:BEFORE]].
-:*'''Keep''' There are enough reliable sources to establish notability. The OP should be briefed about [[WP:BEFORE]].
 :[[Special:Contributions/95.12.119.26|95.12.119.26]] ([[User talk:95.12.119.26|talk]]) 19:00, 24 June 2023 (UTC)