Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States federal judges who died in active service

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 no consensus. There is not going to be a consensus to delete this text, but it does seem clear that there's a possible project space merger on tap. That discussion can continue on the article or project's talk and does not require continuation of this AfD. Star Mississippi 17:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States federal judges who died in active service

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

List of United States federal judges who died in active service (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A fairly common occurrence, and not a defining characteristic of these judges or something that made them (more) notable. Basically, a random pairing of two characteristics. (On a side-note, we shouldn't have mainspace articles with big red errors and "to do " sections in them, that's why we have draft space and user sandboxes).

Nominated are all three lists:

Fram (talk) 08:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Non-defining combination of characteristics. Loew Galitz (talk) 08:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep all, borderline speedy. The nomination suffers from a serious factual misconception – it is in fact not a "common occurance" for a United States federal judge to die in office. A source cited in the lede of each of these articles (Barrow, Zuk, and Gryski, The Federal Judiciary and Institutional Change) specifically identifies this notion as a myth, one that obviously needs dispelling through the existence of the lists presented here. The source goes on to note that despite the official status of life tenure, most federal judges take senior status rather than remaining in active status until they die, and those who do die in office sometimes do because they are holding out in hopes that a president of their own party will be elected to replace them. I would also note that this list parallels List of United States Congress members who died in office, which I assume will be the nominator's next target for deletion after this. BD2412 T 08:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please reread the reasons which apply to speedy keep; this clearly isn't one. If your list is so long that you need to split it into three separate pages, then yes, this is "fairly common". You seem to think that because a majority didn't die in office, it can't be "fairly common"? Anyway, please strike your policy-incompliant "speedy keep" and make some actual arguments about why you would prefer a regular keep. Fram (talk) 08:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The list is a fraction of the length of the longstanding List of United States Congress members who died in office. I have provided a reliable source which states that this an uncommon occurrance (modernly only 8.7% of federal judges) and literally says that it is a myth that this is a common occurrance. You are welcome to present a source to the contrary, but barring that, you seem to be dismissing the source in favor of your ill informed assumption. Since the nomination is premised on a demonstrable misstatement of fact, I will maintain my speedy keep vote, thank you. BD2412 T 08:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a myth that all of them hold on until the time they died: this in no way contradicts my claims. It's common, but it's a myth that it's the default. Fram (talk) 08:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ec)From the source you use to claim that I had a "serious factual misconception": "one out of every five of the judges died in office". Something that happens to one out of five people is fairly common, no? If one out of 5 actors won an Oscar, we wouldn't consider it an exceptional achievement but a fairly common award, not worthy of much attention. Fram (talk) 08:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The source also says, again fairly specifically, that the that modernly, the number has fallen to 8.7% in the modern era. It also attributes some number of these deaths to judges holding out longer than they should in hopes of having a more favorable president replace them, which is a matter of significant political importance. BD2412 T 09:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • So your speedy keep is only for the most modern of the three lists then? Fram (talk) 09:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not a big fan of providing an incomplete set of information when the complete set is available. I will likely expand the lists in the future to indicate whether the death of the judge in question rendered a change in the party filling the seat, which will illustrate how deaths in the judiciary change the political makeup of the courts. If these articles were to be deleted as is, they could be recreated with that new information per WP:RECREATE, as they would then be presenting something not available for contemplation in this discussion. I would also note that all of the "big red errors and "to do" sections" have now been resolved. BD2412 T 09:28, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • Every change of a judge (be it through retirement, dismissal, death, whatever) may cause a change in the political makeup. Adding that information to this list won't change the notability of the list as a group: but I can see you getting these lists recreated, redeleted for the same reasons as now, and then recreated again because the death of a judge may cause the gender balance to change, then again because the death of a judge may cause the race balance to change, and so on. Desperation in action. Fram (talk) 09:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NLIST or restrict to Supreme Court justices and rename appropriately. There are articles about them dying in office,[1][2][3] but not federal ones. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Clarityfiend: Though we have a difference of opinion, I respect your provision of sources regarding the notability of this phenomenon with respect to Supreme Court justices, and would be willing to work towards a compromise that retains the most useful content. What would you think of a list restricted to Supreme Court justices and judges of the United States Courts of Appeal? Those were not properly established until the 1890s, so they basically bypass the period during which deaths of judges in office was more common than it was after senior status was implemented. BD2412 T 18:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Appeals court judges hold no appeal for the general public, so the media and scholars[4] pay little to no attention to their deaths, as far as I can see. It's all Supreme Court. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Clarityfiend: I have found a few things. "Judge’s Death Gives Trump a Chance to Remake a Vexing Court" in the New York Times, which frames the death of a Ninth Circuit judge in terms very similar to those seen with respect to Supreme Court justices. James F. Spriggs and Paul J. Wahlbeck, Calling It Quits: Strategic Retirement on the Federal Courts of Appeals, 1893-1991, Political Research Quarterly. 48(3):573-597 (1995), note, at least, that death interferes with strategic requirement plans by court of appeals judges intending to influence the future course of the bench. Stephen B. Burbank, S. Jay Plager and Gregory Ablavsky, Leaving the Bench, 1970–2009: The Choices Federal Judges Make, What Influences those Choices, and their Consequences, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 161, No. 1 (December 2012), notes that judges tended to work until death until the government provided for a post-resignation judicial pension in 1869 (I was not aware of that detail), and that modernly there is a distinct subset of judges who remain in senior status either until their death, or until very shortly before their deaths, even though they have no financial incentive to continue working. These are available via JSTOR. BD2412 T 22:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep (all) - There are 209 federal courts in the system, approx 1,770 judgeships, and it's for life which makes death while in office notable as does the relatively small but highly important number of appointments. Atsme 💬 📧 10:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's ... not how notability works. BD2412 argues that the lists are notable becaus most judges don't hang on for life, you argue that's it's notable because it is for life. Neither is correct, but in any case both can't be correct. Dying in office for things which are not for life is at least slightly more remarkable than dying in office for things which are for life (e.g. a list of popes who died while in office would be ridiculous, even though there are much less popes tha US federal judges, it's a for life appointment, and each appointment is highly notable or important). Notability for lists is based on WP:LISTN, not on inherited notability because one aspect of the list is notable. Fram (talk) 10:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually do know how N works as does BD2412 – Notability in a nutshell, and WP:IAR. I've been working WP:NPP for a while now, and I teach at the WP:NPPSCHOOL. I've got an opening if you're interested. ^_^ There's a reason for AfD, and why everything is not a speedy-d. I disagree with your belief that my comment cancels out BD2412's and vice versa – both our points are substantive. It doesn't matter if the appointee decides to keep their judgeship for life or retire early. What matters is the total number of judgeships, which is 1770 ad infinitum. The position itself is as notable as the judge who fills it, equally as notable as is POTUS making the appt, and it's far from commonplace. It's an integral part of the Judicial Branch of US gvt., which makes it important encyclopedic information to share with our readers. The media and researchers certainly think it's (judgeships) notable enough to make comparisons of presidential appointments, 13:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC) and report the deaths.[5] It's good information to know, and it's well-organized so that our readers can easily find it. WP is not running out of space to the point that we have to delete encyclopedic articles to save room. Atsme 💬 📧 12:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC) Oops - forgot the death link of NY federal judge - now added. 12:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you have to invoke WP:IAR, then you shouldn't claim WP:N, and vice versa. And you are aware that we are not deciding on keeping or deleting a list of judges? Because you are spending an awful lot of your post on stating that these judges are notable, which is not under discussion. That the deaths are reported is normal, the deaths of the ones who didn't die in office are reported as well. The deaths of notable people are usually reported, no matter their current status. I hope that you don't tell people at NPPSCHOOL that adding a source which doesn't address the topic at hand at all[6] under the guise of establishing notability is an acceptable practice. In the end, you write a lot but give not a single argument to actually defend your position that this specific grouping is a notable subject. Fram (talk) 12:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Federal judgeships are lifetime appointments, so it's unsurprising many stay in office for life. While most do take senior status as a form of semi-retirement and sometimes fully retire, this is not a defining characteristic or one that receives substantial coverage for its significance necessitating this list. All federal judges and their means of leaving office are listed on their respective court articles, and I don't think this needs to be compiled. Members of Congress who died in office is a weak comparison, because that necessitates a special election and Members of Congress tend to be more prominent and receive more national coverage than judges. Reywas92Talk 13:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also members of congress are elected for fixed 2-year terms in the house and 6-ear-terms in the senate, although if elected to fill out a pervious term, it will be less than that (and if appointed to the senate they could be replaced in a special election for the rest of their term). So dieing in office is not expected. It does happen, but since terms are shorter it is less likely.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:08, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What next "List of British Monarchs who died while reigning"? Federal Judgeships are lifetime appointments. While they can be impeached, that is very rare. Up until I think sometime in the 1930s there was not even senor status, you had to fully resign, and doing so was not very common, so dieing in office was even more common.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Person in job for life dies while still in job for life. News at 11. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this clearly meets WP:LISTN, which says that a list meets notability requirements "if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." There is no question that this topic is discussed as a group or set in independent reliable sources. At least one is already in the article, and others have been brought up in the discussion. Votes to delete are alluding that the lists are WP:NONDEFINING, but that only applies to categories, and doesn't apply to lists that meet WP:LISTN. Those should be disregarded.
Another source to add is this one: " "Yet, given what we now know about health and ageing, it must have been uncommon then for old age to impact adversely on the performance of a federal judge's official duties. However, as the epidemiolocal transition took root, and as life expectancy in the United States lengthened, early death provided a dwindling solution to age-related declined in mental capacity. Instead, the judicial system had to place greater reliance on the discretion of federal judges to retire at an appropriate point in their careers." This is actually demonstrated in the lists, where you can see how early judges who died in office were in their 40s and even 30s.CNMall41 (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I have added that source to the first article in the series, and will likely use it for other points in the other two. Obviously, this is still a project very much in development, with some excellent improvements and suggestions for further improvement coming out of this discussion. Cheers! BD2412 T 05:49, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatives to deletion

Comment: though I doubt that a consensus can form on a topic of this nature, here are some alternatives to deletion to insure preservation of the information that his been compiled in these articles before and during the course of this discussion:

  • The pages could be merged and moved. The content in the lede sections is sufficient to support a freestanding article at a title like Deaths of United States federal judges in active service. Such an article would expand upon the sources explaining how and why the death rate has fluctuated over time, and detailing the increased likelihood of confirmation battles or abolishment of seats following the death of a judge. The tables could be collapsed (as we often do for things like teams in sports tournaments), so that the information is still there if someone really wants to review it, but the focus of the article would be the text rather than the tables.
  • The content could be merged and redirected to a section of United States federal judge, which is currently a bit thin relative to the importance of that subject, again collapsing the tables so they take up little space in the article, but making the content available for those who want to review it.

If a clear consensus for deletion does develop, these lists should be moved to project space as subpages of Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges. As alluded to previously in the discussion, the hand-curated content in these lists can be used to fill holes and fix errors in the Wikidata entries on these judges. Alternately, these could be moved back to draftspace, or back to my userspace, from which the entire project originated. The Wikidata work can be carried out from any of those spaces. BD2412 T 18:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to freestanding article at a title like Deaths of United States federal judges in active service as suggested above. Springnuts (talk) 08:44, 24 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_United_States_federal_judges_who_died_in_active_service&oldid=1109399224"