Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erin Morrow Hawley


 * 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 redirect to List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States. There is a consensus that there are not enough sources to support an article at this time. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 18:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Erin Morrow Hawley

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Combination of WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTINHERITED: who she is married to does not confer notability, and in itself clerking for a SCOTUS justice does not make them notable either (although people who do very often go on to do notable things). In this case, however they do not seem to meet WP:NACADEMIC: a few publications with low citations, no major awards or offices, and she lacks significant coverage in 3rd party RS. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:40, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:40, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:40, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. WP:NOTINHERITED. No pass of WP:Prof or WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC).
 * Keep. I wrote out the article, it is now sufficiently notable.Bjhillis (talk) 01:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Notable how? Sorry but article length/detail is not what makes someone notable, and your additions don't change my !vote, or (imo) demonstrate notability. Editing the Yale law school journal is the only thing that gave me pause for thought, but if you click the link the masthead makes it clear that she was one of about 48 "senior editors," working under almost as many "managing editors" and an editor-in-chief. So, not really an "editor" at all in the sense that would make her notable - looks like half or more of Yale's law students are "editors" for the journal at any given time. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Wait for  to have a look at it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. I see something in there about being counsel to a U.S. Attorney General???  Looking at the article history I am amazed to see this knee-jerk AfD was made just half an hour after the first edit to create the article stub.  I see more than two independent sources about the subject and it certainly seems interesting enough to let the editors continue to work on it. Wnt (talk) 22:04, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Being counsel to the attorney general just means that you work as a lawyer in the AG's office - they have junior lawyers and interns working there just like every other gov't office, it's not an inherently notable position. More generally: if you're going to vote "keep," maybe you should explain which notability criteria you think she meets, and how? Fyddlestix (talk) 22:45, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:TOOSOON. I just don't see any claim to notability. Certainly not that she was a Future Farmers of America member, high school valedictorian(?), editor on the Yale Law Review might be notable *if* anybody ever choose to write an article on it, but our reference is just to the masthead (not in-depth coverage).  The closest achievement she has that might be considered notable is as a clerk to Chief Justice Roberts (our reference for this is a blog of one of her friends).  But our List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States  gives 55 other people who have served in the same position with Roberts and only one, her husband, has an article.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 02:40, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hawley's notability is: (1) counsel to the U.S. Attorney General and private practice at elite Bancroft and Kirkland & Ellis; (2) law professor at UM; (3) scholar of U.S. Supreme Court jurisdiction who has published three law review articles on the topic; (4) participant in public discussion on SCOTUS blog, C-SPAN, and television news.Bjhillis (talk) 04:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * keep a quick google news search turns up several items by or about her, or using her as a source. i'd say that qualifies under WP:GNG -- Aunva6talk - contribs 07:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete Thanks for pinging me in,, but my searches are turning up only mentions of her being quoted, or of her writing. I hit several databases I have access to that usually reliably turn up good info and came up empty. The sources in the article don't quite meet the threshold for GNG notability. There is an interview, several university sources and sources that are primarily about her husband. I think she's TOOSOON, but given that she's being quoted often and is writing about law, it would probably be more useful to move the article to user space, since she may likely be notable in the near future, IMO. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If industrious Megalibrarygirl can't find enough sources we can be sure that they aren't there. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC).
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a reasonable nomination and there isn't a huge amount of substantial coverage readily available online, but I think common sense applies that this is a notable subject as a professor at a major uni who worked for a supreme court justice and the attorney general, who's married to Missouri's Attorney General, who has a presence as a public figure and speaker, who's husband is a major candidate for Senate in Missouri, and who's writing on the law and topical political issues provide useful discourse. Could we take a strict interpretation of policy and delete her bio as too soon? Sure. We could stash it in user space or undelete it down the road, but it's obvious that this in fact a signifance and influential individual in the educational, political, and legal realms. We would be doing our readers a disservice by hiding it from view as we all expect her to continue to be a subject of interest and influence going forward even more so than she already has been. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:14, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Being the wife of a state attorney general in no way confirs notability, so that is a fail. While many clerks to Supreme Court justices rise to the level of notability, it is not a case of default notability, just a case of putting you on the right track. Thus, for example Hannah Clayson Smith is notable as a lead attorney in cases like the Hosana-Tabor Case, not because she was law clerk to two supreme court justices. Morrow's role under Mukasey is even less clearly grounds for notability. It almost seems to me that the postion has been spun as more important than it is. On the issue of being a law professor, this can be grounds for notability, but I do not see indications that her scholarship has yet risen to a level to make her notable. We need a good citation record or a named chair, which are both lacking.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * After a read of this discussion and doing the classic tri-search I have to conclude that this is just too soon. A wide variety of sources can be found, including a reference from The New York Times, but significant coverage is the major failure. Technically I can find multiple paragraphs in reliable sources about her, but no more than one a independent source. In this !vote I am more considering the message of general notability than the specific wording of the general notability guideline. Now, here are sources I have found:, (section 3, paragraph 2), ,  (section 1, paragraph 4),  (row 7, column 2), and  (paragraph 7). Despite the whole article being about Hawley, source 1 has only one non-interview paragraph and combined with my questioning of reliability for this niche website (Missouri Lawyers Media) I don't think it has enough to count in anyway towards the general presumption of notability. Source 2 is merely a sentence about her. Source 3—despite being easy SIGCOV—is also quite easily a primary source. Source 4 is only 1–3 sentences. Source 5 is one sentence in a gallery. Source 6 is a paragraph, but does not quite qualify. All in all, the sources I've found are mainly about her opinions and analysis.  sums up the situation well and as she's a expert in women-related topics I feel inclined to agree with her. Thus, weak userfy/draftify.  J  947  (c · m)  04:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect to List of Law clerks.... Meets neither WP:PROF or GNG. Had she been editor in chief if Yale Law Journal, I would have considered her notable, but she was one one the 138 editors in her year. The number of publications so far is insufficient.Whether being a clerk to a Justice of the Supreme Court ius notable is worth considering,  but the best way to establish would be to go 30 or 40 years back, and see how many have careers that would make them otherwise notable. Only then could we assume that all present ones would be also. Otherwise, it's basically the same as a postdoctoral position to a very famous scientist,  not yet notable .  DGG ( talk ) 06:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting discussion. I fear most women law professors would not meet the notability standards suggested above (Hawley's five law review articles not enough? Yale Law Journal too obscure?). For example, a majority of the 50 or so female law clerks to Sandra Day O'Connor, both law partners and professors, would not meet these standards of notability (how many female law professors in the U.S. hold endowed chairs? 5? 6?) I added to Hawley's article the cite mentioned above where she is quoted in the NY Times, and another to the WaPo, and details on her working with Paul Clement on a U.S. Supreme Court brief. In all seriousness, I had the misimpression that the Delete tag was applied due to Hawley's extreme right wing politics, which is offensive to many and perhaps unfortunate given her shining intellect, but am heartened that none of the comments above mention her ideology. Whether Hawley is deleted matters little. What remains is the wider effect on including women lawyers on Wiki.Bjhillis (talk) 02:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I had no idea that she had any politics. I voted delete on sources. Women lawyers (or anything else) are welcome on Wikipedia if notability is adequate. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC).


 * Redirect per User:DGG above, as others have called it WP:TOOSOON, but the possibility of more coverage happening that could make this article later, a redirect will preserve the history so it can be expanded back out when more substantiate coverage has occurred (and not need to go through a deletion review to find it!). Wow that was alot of comma. Gatemansgc (talk) 08:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect per DGG. It's clear that she doesn't so far have enough publications or cites in them for showing influence. Whether most law clerks for the supreme court eventually become notable is not important as she's not notable right now - perhaps an article can be created later but not now. Most women law professors would not meet WP:NPROF because most professors don't - it's based on the average professor test: someone has to be more influential than the average professor. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC) She's not even a full professor yet. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:51, 6 December 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.