Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of confirmation votes for the Supreme Court of the United States

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. I was persuaded by the arguments against a Merger here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of confirmation votes for the Supreme Court of the United States[edit]

[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)

recently created page covers a topic on which there is already a page – List of nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States. Drdpw (talk) 12:49, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Politics, and United States of America. Drdpw (talk) 12:49, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Merge and redirect to the list of nominations. These pages do have slightly different content. The subjects are not identical, but they are so similar there is no reason to keep them separate. Readers would be better served by having both tables combined into one, or at least be maintained on the same page. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:18, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the lists here are too long for them to be merged into one. SecretName101 (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The page is largely redundant due to the existence of List of nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States. If there is content here that can be viably merged (as suggested above by User:Ganesha811) then by all means do so, but I can see no valid reason to keep this as a standalone article. Sal2100 (talk) 20:34, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Changing my !vote based on the valid arguments made below by SecretName101 and Newyorkbrad. Sal2100 (talk) 20:02, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article covers a different aspect. It provides a complete table of what each confirmation vote looked like in terms of total. This is information not available at the other article. And there is not enough room to comfortably fit it in the other article, whose list includes nominations that did not proceed to confirmation votes. This is no duplication. It is useful and informative to have this information all in one place and be able to draw comparisons between the different confirmation votes. Nowhere else on Wikipedia can you in one place obtain a comparison of what vote share nominations received for confirmation, or easily see what party support looked like. And it seems its best this comparison be made to the fullest it can be made, which warrants a standalone article. SecretName101 (talk) 23:17, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article contains significant information not contained in the previous one. While a merge-and-redirect might be possible, I think keeping these more detailed voting records separate is a better option, as this level of detail is beyond what's optimal for the main listing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:40, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as written, per SecretName101 and Newyorkbrad. This presentation of information is unique, and merging it into the list of nominations would overly complicate that list. BD2412 T 19:05, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as mostly duplicative. It's the same essential topic -- nominations to the Supreme Court -- but merely gives one main extra piece of data. Having the information in a single article makes it all easier to find and use. Worst case, you have two separate tables in one article. The main existing list already includes ancillary columns, and there's no particular affinity for keeping those in the main article versus splitting out into a separate article than there is for the article being considered here. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:14, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having two very long tables in an article can be very overwhelming and difficult to navigate. That is the very reason to spin things into separate articles. SecretName101 (talk) 19:36, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are already multiple very long tables in this new article, as the article is (seemingly) arbitrarily divided into separate tables. I suppose one alternative would be to discard the older list article, from which this new one is as mostly duplicative. The several nominees seemingly "lost" from such a move, those whose nominations never received a confirmation vote, would in-fact not be lost, as they are included in Unsuccessful nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States. Drdpw (talk) 01:40, 10 November 2022 (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.