Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Female State Supreme Court Justices

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Female_State_Supreme_Court_Justices[edit]

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

I would like to withdraw my nomination; consensus is clearly "keep". dci | TALK 21:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the content of this article, but do not believe that the subject as a whole meets this encyclopedia's guidelines as to notability. The references seem to refer largely to single justices or to the female justices of a certain state, not to the broader topic of "female State Supreme Court justices", which is what this article has been entitled. dci | TALK 21:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Although it seems from the content that the author meant this article to apply only to the USA, it is not clear from either the text or the title that that is the case. Other countries have states and female supreme court justices. if this survives, perhaps the distinction could be made clear in the title or the article expanded. Ubelowme _U ^Me 21:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems an appropriate list per WP:LISTPURP, and it's fairly well sourced. See other entries at List of lists of women#United States. Expand and rename to List of female state supreme court justices. --BDD (talk) 22:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the present scope is too narrow. It currently lists only the first female justice per state, when a list of all of them would be more appropriate (and intuitive, given the title). --BDD (talk) 22:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "List of female United States state supreme court justices", omitting the US Supreme Court and including every female state-level justice to have sat on the bench, would do. I'll withdraw the nomination of it's to be expanded or changed. dci | TALK 22:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"United States" probably isn't necessary. State supreme court suggests the concept only exists in the US. I'd leave it out if it's up to me, but it wouldn't bother me if it were added. I'm willing to work on expansion. --BDD (talk) 22:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

India has both states and courts to go with them, and that's just the first example that comes to mind. Wouldn't it be better to err on the side of clarity? Ubelowme _U ^Me 23:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's always a question when it comes to article titles. I generally prefer more concise titles, and I think it's appropriate in this case. India's state courts seem to be called High Courts. My approach would be to create a hatnote here if a similar article for Indian judges were ever made. Perhaps an additional hatnote should be added to State supreme court. --BDD (talk) 23:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is my article, but I can take the constructive criticism. I think the title should be changed for sure because it is misleading. But if it was changed to "List of the First Female Supreme Court Justice for each US State" this would a a comprehensive and accurate representation of that information. It could eventually be expanded to include every Female Justice that ever sat on that state bench, but if the title was revised right now with this information, expansion could be a goal of the future. It could also potentially be added to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's History, as well as the US Law one. --JMCrist52 —Preceding undated comment added 23:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged it as within the scope of WP Women's History, and I'll add Law. There's a project for United States Courts and Judges, but it looks like that might just be about federal courts. I don't think there's a problem with renaming now. Incompleteness isn't a reason to delete a list, and the broader scope would match similar articles better. --BDD (talk) 00:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly encyclopedic list with useful navigational function. Carrite (talk) 00:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is within the guidelines of WP:LISTPURP, subject is of encyclopedic value, and it sufficiently sourced.--JayJasper (talk) 18:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - could be cleaned up and improved, but it's a good topic. Savidan 03:56, 23 August 2012 (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.