Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States


 * 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. WP:SNOW. Editors can use normal channels to consider the possibility of splitting. postdlf (talk) 21:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet criteria for standalone lists/Topic is so incredibly broad that the number of listings can quickly approach infinity Jax 0677 (talk) 03:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. A well-defined, finite (albeit large), and highly significant list. The importance of Supreme Court clerkships, and the quality and usefulness of this list, are both noted in a December 2014 article at FiveThirtyEight .   Prior discussions on the talk page also attest to this list's validity, including the long thread at Talk:List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Snowball Keep. This most certainly does meet the criteria for standalone lists. Per WP:LSC, the contents of the list are "unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources". Nor is the list so broad that it "can quickly approach infinity". There are a finite number of clerks every term (four per sitting Justice, one per retired Justice). The topic of this list meets GNG and is neither "too general" nor "too specific" (per WP:SALAT). I should also note that Wikipedia's deletion policy states that "[i]f editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page" (see WP:ATD). This article can certainly use some editing, but AfD is not the way to go. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is an incredibly notable and encyclopedic page to have. I'm certainly sensitive to the concerns over at Talk:List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States, but none of that constitutes grounds for deletion.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 22:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - all would be notable lawyers. Bearian (talk) 00:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, but divide to several pages - it takes too much time to load. It certainly goes quickly for some computers, but not for mine - and many people have much older and slower computers than I. K9re11 (talk) 09:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, I agree in part with your statement. If the article cannot be kept, we need to have the discussion about splitting the article, as it is approaching 1GB. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * left their vote on the talk page, so I have copied and pasted it below. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep This article is tremendously useful for law students and attorneys and may be the only such list in existence. This topic is important for the following reasons: (1) SCOTUS law clerks routinely become prominent attorneys, judges, and Supreme Court justices, and keeping track of these individuals is of political importance; (2) for those intersted in becoming SCOTUS law clerks, this article shows which circuit and district judges have sent law clerks to SCOTUS; (3) this article is a useful starting place for empirical research regarding prominent attorneys and SCOTUS Law Clerks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewPeterson12 (talk • contribs)


 * Keep and split (also signed a post from the talk page). Law clerkship is an objective and sourceable inclusion criterium although this article leaves me a bit wondering about sourcing. And given the existence of sources talking about the concept of a SCOTUS law clerk I'd say that notability guidelines are satisfied as well. The page though is already creating page load problems so I'd suggest a split per Article size.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:08, 11 October 2015 (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.