- 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. This could possibly have been adjudged a "keep", but the bottom line is that there is not sufficient consensus to delete this article. Discussion as to an appropriate move or merge can continue on the article's talk page. A Train talk 07:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- Trump nominees who have withdrawn ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article seems to have no encyclopdeic value, in addition to maybe being a violation of WP:NPOV. Jdavi333 ( talk) 01:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- DELETE: Agree. Not only completely unprofessional and ungrammatical, but do such lists exists for every POTUS? Quis separabit? 01:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete and do not merge into Political appointments by Donald Trump as some others might suggest. No other lists exists for ex-presidents. Corky Buzz by the Hornet's Nest 02:53, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- Keep -- This article was nominated for deletion based on an assertion of WP:NPOV issues. Those issues will be resolved with references. The article will eventually be MOVEd to Trump nominees who withdrew. I suspect we will discover in retrospect that this administration suffered a higher attrition rate of appointees and nominees than any other administration. citation needed original research? (See, I saved you the work). Creation of the article is BOLD. Secondary sources exist. CNN quoted this: "relative to the number of confirmed people, Trump's percentage of failed nominations is very high," with numbers that followed. More references will follow. In the mean time, we should not lose this article. Rhadow ( talk) 11:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I agree with Rhadow. Other administrations don't need a list because they don't have controversial descisions to put controversial people in government positions. AFAICR no other administration has had the problems dishing out the spoils that the current one has.
L3X1
(distænt write)
15:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- I, on the other hand, disagree with both
@L3X1 and
@Rhadow. I find their proposals partisan and selective, and based on their own
personal points of view, which their own laughably self-righteous and POV rationales confirm:
and"I suspect we will discover in retrospect that this administration suffered a higher attrition rate of appointees and nominees than any other administration. citation needed original research? (See, I saved you the work). Creation of the article is BOLD.")
"Other administrations don't need a list because they don't have controversial descisions to put controversial people in government positions."
Ummm, can anyone say CRYSTAL and OR?? If you create such an article list for Trump, then one should be created for every POTUS (FDR, Reagan, Nixon, and Clinton would appear particularly apropos, but ALL POTUSES should be covered in the interests of fairness and consistency). Quis separabit? 22:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- Quick response is that OR is for article content not whether or not to have an article.
L3X1
(distænt write)
23:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- Upon further (though relatively shallow) digging, most of the other POTUS's seem to only have these issues regarding Supreme Court appointees, not for the Cabinet and other positions. I'm sorry if I appear self-righteous, but I think calling OSE to be just as big a non-solution: This can't exist till everything else that probably should exist exists. As for NPOV, the facts are that Trump nominated people for a position, and they withdrew.
L3X1
(distænt write)
23:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- "most of the other POTUS's seem to only have these issues regarding Supreme Court appointees, not for the Cabinet and other positions." -- that does not sound either reliably sourced or genuinely investigative in nature. What's more, such a list is pointless, partisan, and divisive. Quis separabit? 01:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
- Upon further (though relatively shallow) digging, most of the other POTUS's seem to only have these issues regarding Supreme Court appointees, not for the Cabinet and other positions. I'm sorry if I appear self-righteous, but I think calling OSE to be just as big a non-solution: This can't exist till everything else that probably should exist exists. As for NPOV, the facts are that Trump nominated people for a position, and they withdrew.
L3X1
(distænt write)
23:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- Quick response is that OR is for article content not whether or not to have an article.
L3X1
(distænt write)
23:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- Strong keep - As pointed out above by Rhadow, the unusually high number of withdrawn nominations is based on observations in secondary sources and is not OR. The fact that other pages don't exist is not a good reason to delete this page. Not every presidency is the same or has the same issues. It's not unprofessional or political to simply create pages for notable events supported by secondary sources. Shelbystripes ( talk) 06:30, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
- Comment -- This discussion has turned personal and partisan. There are plenty of other places to pursue it on the web, but not on an article talk page. Arguments based on WP:OR, WP:NPOV, or even WP:CRYSTAL are fine. Please leave unprofessional, self-righteous, pointless, partisan, and divisive out of the conversation. If you wish to to add to the article that the current administration has been extraordinarily successful at placing appeals court nominees, that's fine. That's a fact. Rhadow ( talk) 12:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
- Keep but improve - I agree to keep this article as mentioned by Rhadow. The article looks a notable one and should be improved with adding references and the article hasn't been categorised yet. Abishe ( talk) 17:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
- Move. Honestly, this just doesn't need to be its own article. Moving to Political appointments by Donald Trump#Announced positions from which candidates have withdrawn seems like a perfectly fine solution to me for all the reasons listed here. The fact are (1) this does not need to be its own article as they don't exist for other presidential administrations, (2) the Trump Administration for whatever reason (even if it's coincidental) has had an above average number of officials withdraw their nominations, and (3) this content could be better served to readers within the context of the article on political appointments of the administration in general. We have an article on the spooky similarities between JFK and Lincoln, so I am confident that a simple move is all we need here. Thank you all for the discussion, and I hope to receive your feedback. ― Matthew J. Long -Talk- ☖ 21:40, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- Merge to Political appointments by Donald Trump and lose the images. Fits nicely there, no need for a separate article. Sandstein 12:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- Merge to Political appointments by Donald Trump, completely agree with the above statement. A logical extension of the existing page. -- J04n( talk page) 13:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- Merge to Political appointments by Donald Trump - the above three comments all explain nicely why this is a very good idea. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete- Does not comply with WP:NPOV. Why does Trump get a special article about this? To say that Trump has "unusually high number of nominees" is not accurate. The CNN article that is referenced mentions that Obama had a similar number of withdrawn nominees. It even says "This number is not unprecedented". Also in the CNN article is the fact that Trump nominated less people overall. Trump is then quoted explaining that he doesn't intend to fill many of the positions because they're not necessary. The CNN article also doesn't detail how many withdrawn nominees presidents had in their first year before Obama. How many did either Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, etc. have? We don't know.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 04:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- Keep and if not expanded, merge If other presidents do no have this data, work to create that data set. -- RAN ( talk) 14:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- Keep -- Sufficiently notable and sourced. Trump's administration is unique in this regard, so the list is worth keeping. The merge, if any, can be discussed on the article's Talk page. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:21, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete See no need for a page for withdrawn nominees it is like having a page for rejected job applicants and See no encyclopedic value.Further the claim that Trump has "unusually high number of nominees" is POV for example John Tyler holds the record for most cabinet nominees rejected by the Senate four and Clinton had five nominee withdrawn while Trump has only one .The notable withdrawals like Cabinet and Supreme Court already have there own pages Unsuccessful nominations to the Cabinet of the United States and Unsuccessful nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States and there is a page for Political appointments by Donald Trump. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 13:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete lots of nominees withdraw, for lots of reasons. Considering how many people get nominated to office by the president, this is just a bad idea for an article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. This is valid list. The list of unsuccessful nominees is actually helpful in connection with other existing pages on US politics. My very best wishes ( talk) 21:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Reading the first reference the CNN article itself states This number is not unprecedented, according to the Partnership for Public Service, a nonpartisan nonprofit organization that tracks federal nominations and provides data for CNN's tracker. At this point in his tenure, former President Barack Obama had seen eleven withdrawn nominations, too. clearly showing that this is not unusually high or unprecedented Obama had 11 and Trump has 12 hence do not consider to be notable while it can be stated it is high relative to the number of confirmed people so far can stated in the article Political appointments by Donald Trump clearly do not see a need for a separate article . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 03:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Reading the 2nd reference President Trump's record on filling judicial vacancies has far outdistanced his predecessors.Trump, aided by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has won confirmation of 12 appeals court nominees. That's more than any president in his first year, and indeed, more than Presidents Obama and George W. Bush combined. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 03:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- 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.