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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
Keep - all would be notable lawyers.
Bearian (
talk) 00:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)reply
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
Reply - @
K9re11:, 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)reply
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
Wikipedia:Article size.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions) 10:08, 11 October 2015 (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.