Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick J. Haig

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick J. Haig

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

I want to nominate Frederick J. Haig for deletion.

My rationale: 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 Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Politicians, it lists the types of political figures who are notable. Law clerks to the Supreme Court do not appear to fit in the criteria. 2600:1700:7822:6190:98AD:B7CE:DD3C:B031 (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Haig is notable as the longest serving law clerk in U.S. Supreme Court history.Bjhillis (talk) 19:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's a sufficient ground for notability; a lot of people have served in the same job longer than anyone else, and that alone doesn't make them notable. 2600:1700:7822:6190:98AD:B7CE:DD3C:B031 (talk) 19:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Completing nomination of behalf of IP editor. I have no opinion of my own at this time. --Finngall ^talk 19:40, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 19:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 19:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I read the article and asked myself: Did he make a difference, one that should be remembered? Based on the article as written, no. Rhadow (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being a law clerk is not a sign of default notability and no other claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:34, 14 November 2017 (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.