Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clarence M. York


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Clarence M. York

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

My rationale for nominating: His only notability seems to be that he was a law clerks to the U.S. Supreme Court. As was noted in a previous deletion discussion, "it's not clear under present Wikipedia notability policy that SCOTUS clerks are notable."


 * Under Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes, it lists the types of political figures who are notable. Law clerks to the Supreme Court do not appear to fit in the criteria. I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). 2600:1700:7822:6190:98AD:B7CE:DD3C:B031 (talk) 20:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

As with Frederick J. Haig, Clarence York was one of the longest serving law clerks in the history of the U.S. Supreme Court, and so is notable.Bjhillis (talk) 19:49, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * So this is based on a precedent (we don't work by precedent) from Articles for deletion/List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States from BYU (2nd nomination), a page on law clerks from a single school, which stated "this page is really redundant, and unnecessary. There is one page which lists all of the law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States." So is that a claim that law clerks aren't notable?  Or a recognition that law clerks are notable (but a single-school list of them isn't). Andy Dingley (talk) 21:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: this AfD was malformed and untranscluded when created, I have just fixed and transcluded it.  Hut 8.5  22:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep the nomination here is flawed: the fact that no inherent notability is attached to being a supreme law clerk doesn't mean anything if the subject passes the general notability guideline. Just looking at the sources cited in the article there is a 14 page article in a law journal primarily about the subject, several newspaper articles covering the subject's death and the Courtiers of the Marble Palace book which devotes at least a page to him. Even without any attempt to find any additional sources that's easily enough to pass the GNG.  Hut 8.5  23:02, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:57, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:57, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Incubate, I find your argument convincing. I read the article in The Green Bag, which you cite, which is about Mr. York. You also cite two other articles. This, I think is "significant coverage."
 * But, here is why the WP article should be incubated: The article only describes Mr. York's clerkship, and does not describe anything else. The article does not say why Mr. York is notable enough for a WP article, except for his Supreme Court clerkship. As I have explained elsewhere, I do not believe that a Supreme Court clerkship, alone, is enough to make a person notable. So, for this article to meet WP standards, it has to state the facts (some of which are found in The Green Bag article) as to what makes Mr. York worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. 2600:1700:7822:6190:98AD:B7CE:DD3C:B031 (talk) 00:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Notability doesn't work that way. It is certainly true that having a supreme court clerkship, in itself, does not make someone notable. However it doesn't follow from this that someone who hasn't done anything more important than having a supreme court clerkship can't be notable. This is because you can always show that someone is notable by demonstrating that they meet the GNG, and meeting the GNG has nothing to do with what positions the subject has or has not held. The article could certainly be improved but it is perfectly fine as it is, it explains the subject's main claim to fame, it's well cited, and I don't see any reason to incubate it.  Hut 8.5  11:14, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per . The state of the article is unimportant for the purposes of an AFD discussion; as long as the subject itself is notable and sufficient reliable sources are found to exist, the article should be kept. Hut 8.5 demonstrated both of these with the research above. As such it does not need to be incubated, per WP:AFD is not cleanup. Sufficient source material to improve the article has been found; it is now up to a volunteer to actually improve it. But that can be done as part of regular article maintenance, and doesn't require any special treatment of the article.  C Thomas3   (talk) 00:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per Hut 8.5's sources. Someone with the longest tenure in a given role is more than likely going to be notable, and the sources seal the deal. The IP's claim that the article doesn't say why the subject is notable makes no sense, given the content of the article, and also ignores the fact that the existence of sources is taken as a demonstration of notability in most cases, rather than their presence in the article. The fact that the article is about York's tenure as a law clerk rather than anything else simply means that other sources (if there are any) should be consulted regarding his non-law-clerking life, and again misunderstands the way that Wikipedia article are created. While the IP's heart is clearly in the right place, this does seem like the kind of discussion which could have been avoided by a new-ish user consulting policies first. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Credible claim of notability, backed by reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 05:17, 14 November 2017 (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.