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 delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Kate Comerford Todd

Kate Comerford Todd (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominated for deletion in September, when there was no consensus due to the possibility that she might be named to the Supreme Court. This was never going to happen, and did not happen. The subject therefore never rose above the status of one of numerous similarly titled White House functionaries, and interest has since disappeared. BD2412 T 05:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete Low-level staffer fails WP:GNG. Placement on a Supreme Court shortlist (that she helped draft) does not make her notable. Should have been deleted when I nominated the page back in September. KidAd talk 06:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete Could be a brief mention on the White House Counsel article during Le Grand Orange's tenure. Nothing notable otherwise. Oaktree b ( talk) 21:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete As I and others said before, being deputy white house counsel is not a sign of notability. There are too many of them and there is no notability. Considering that there are evidently quotes from Mr. Trump about the time the post-Anthony Kennedy vacancy occured that he was saving Amy Comey Barrett to fill the seat previously held by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the suggestions that Todd would be nominated to the Supreme Court seem in hind-sight to have not been justified after all. However, Mr. Trump especially, and political leaders in general who make appointments, make lots of passing statements about such that later on they do not always follow through on, so it is entrirely possible that at one point Mr. Trump seriously considered nominating Ms. Todd, but he never did so, and being rumored as a possible nominee for the supreme court does not fit the inclusion criteria, so we should delete this article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:NPOL and WP:SNOW. I also note she fails my own standards for lawyers. While she was an editor of the Harvard Law Review and clerked for Clarence Thomas, she has zero bar association or civic committee activity, and zero newspaper articles of record online about her. Bearian ( talk) 20:07, 28 January 2021 (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.