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.
Speedy Strong keep Unquestionably meets WP:EVENT. WP:RECENTISM doesn't apply because while yes, this is a recent event, it will have long-term lasting notability. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER disallows original reporting as well as articles whose subject does not have lasting notability. Neither apply here. This article will change rapidly over the coming months, but that is just the nature of articles about current events. For precedent to this article see Merrick Garland Supreme Court nomination. Precedent is not an argument for notability, but it does give a good idea of how this page is likely to evolve and demonstrates the clear sticking power of this event. Paisarepa04:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:EVENTCRIT, "...not an indiscriminate collection of information or a news service. Wikinews offers a place where editors can document current news events, but not every incident that gains media coverage will have or should have a Wikipedia article" and "Editors should bear in mind recentism, the tendency for new and current matters to seem more important than they might seem in a few years time. Many events receive coverage in the news and yet are not of historic or lasting importance." KidAdtalk04:59, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All due respect, but I think it is glaringly obvious this event will have historic and lasting importance, and will seem just as important later as it does now. PrairieKid (talk) 05:01, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: This is a widely-covered event which we are certain will have historic implications, as well as an immediate impact on the presidential election. The two policies you cite are about day-to-day events which are not of long-term consequence--they certainly do not state that anything in the news is unworthy of an article. Just as there ought to be articles for elections which have not taken place (and as there was with the 2020 VP selection long before Biden was even nominated, much less Harris selected), there should be an article for this selection which has not taken place. I would be alright with later moving the article to "[Nominee's name here] Supreme Court Nomination," to remain consistent with others. But I would not wait for a nominee to make the article. Very, very strong keep. PrairieKid (talk) 04:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: This event has worldwide coverage and significance, in addition to significance in relation to the forthcoming presidential election. -- Whiteguru (talk) 05:07, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is similar to more than four years ago when the Merrick Garland Supreme Court nomination page was originally created with the similar title 2016 United States Supreme Court vacancy.[1] Like before, this is still historically notable even though someone has not been actually nominated yet. Both back then and now there is controversy with the major U.S. political parties are debating whether to fill the vacancy ASAP or wait until after the upcoming election. Only this time, the vacancy has happened within weeks before the election instead of months, and therefore becoming a major election issue. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:30, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, with a forecast of snow and a suggestion that the snowball clause be invoked before the deletion tag sits on the page for too much longer. ((u|Sdkb))talk07:33, 20 September 2020 (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.