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 no consensus. Explicitly closing with no prejudice against a renomination. This discussion has been bogged down by her status as a potential nominee to the supreme court; the arguments for and against notability based on other aspects of her biography has received relatively little attention. A fresh discussion, occurring after the dust has settled on her potential nomination, may help clarify this. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Comerford Todd[edit]

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

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

Low-level staffer fails WP:GNG. Placement on a Supreme Court shortlist (that she helped draft) does not make her notable. KidAd talk 04:44, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning delete. Per Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges/Notability#Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States: "Persons whose names are floated by the executive branch as being under consideration for nomination are not inherently notable, but this is strong evidence of notability that can be established by any other indicia of notability". In this case, there is zero indication of any other indicia of notability. BD2412 T 15:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete deputy White House counsel is not an inherently notable list. Being on President's Trump's list of potential Supreme Court nominees is not a sign of notability. Most of the people on the list are notable, but that is because most are already federal judges, and of the ones who are not their are normally either state judges at a level of default notability or holders of elected positions that make them notable. Being on the list itself is not a sign of notability. No if Justice Ginsburg dies tomorrow and President Trump nominate Ms. Todd to the Supreme Court on Monday than she will be notable, no matter what happens after that, but unless that happens or a less dramatic other development that causes her to be notable, she will not be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I posted the above before Justice Ginsburg died. I had no idea she would die. Unless Todd is nominated by President Trump for the new opening, she will not at this time be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course, if President Trump dies tomorrow, the entire calculation of who might be under consideration goes out the window. BD2412 T 19:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Delete Before her post in the Trump administration, and her even more recent addition to President Trump's list of potential Supreme Court nominees, Kate Todd was a Senior VP and Chief Counsel for the US Chamber of Commerce's Litigation Center. She is a prominent member of the Federalist Society, and has served on the faculty of George Washington University Law School. She was executive editor of the Harvard Law Review and clerked for Associate Justice Clarence Thomas. If she isn't notable, who is? JohnGHissong (talk) 04:46, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of that makes her notable. KidAd talk 05:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"If she isn't notable, who is?" George Washington, Woodrow Wilson, Winston Churchill, Britney Spears, Meghan Markle, Ronald Reagan, Tom Cruise, Oprah Winfrey, etc. Chetsford (talk) 23:06, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Todd seems to be a leading contender for the seat vacated by Justice Ginsburg open her death. See this source. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk_Contribs 17:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL based on a tweet? Hardly justification to keep an article with terrible sourcing. KidAd talk 17:52, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, but the tweet literally says, "SOURCES: ". In seriousness, though, this subject was a law professor at some point. Is there any scholarship to mention? BD2412 T 18:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of her wedding announcement, she was an adjunct law professor at “ Cornell University in Washington,” a satellite campus of Cornell University. I don’t think adjuncts are notable for being adjuncts. KidAd talk 18:26, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but I would still like to know if she has published anything of note. Call me skeptical, but curious. BD2412 T 18:30, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, I think Trump would be very unwise to nominate Comerford Todd to the Supreme Court per the Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination. Keeping the page based on the possibility would also be unwise. KidAd talk 18:58, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trump doing unwise things is not that rare. Except that in some ways Trump was able to win the Republican Nomination in part because of how he played the nomination field, he had a plan that gave some Republicans confidence. Trump's first win in large part came down to the voters who hated him as a person, but just could not bear to deal with who Mrs. Clinton would put on the Supreme Court. The Republican advance in the 2018 election in the senate was in large part tied to Supreme Court issues. It is not just Miers, but even more so George H. W. Bush's first supreme court pick. With a friendly senate Trump does not need to find someone with as light a record of rulings as Justice Thomas had before his appointment. They will want rulings, and this means someone who served as a judge. I could be totally wrong, but I still think Trump will go with Amy Comey Barrett. And then he will seek to play up Senator Feinstein's bigotted anti-Catholic rhetoric against her nomination to the judiciary to the max in the election. I could be wrong, but that is the set of outcomes my money is on. Nothing to date makes me thing Todd is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this assessment is generally on-point. KidAd talk 19:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kagan is the only current member of the Supreme Court who had not been a federal judge before her appointment, and Democrats do not have a long list of non-judge appointments to the Supreme Court that acted in ways not expected that haunt them like Republicans have with several including Blackmun. Even at that Kagan has handed down some rulings that are not liked much by some on the left, so I can see some concerns coming from this. Since we do not have an actual listing of Todd's age I cannot comment on that. With Supreme Court membership being lifelong, there is a pull to appoint fairly young people to the court so they can have long terms. That looks to be the main thing that Todd has in her favor, but with no judicial experience, it would be a hard sell. The precedent that scares Republicans is David Souter who had virtually no experience as a federal judge, and Harry Blackmun. Since these are the justices who wrote Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Roe v. Wade, the two rulings most disliked by the pro-life movement, it is very hard to see Todd being seen as a viable Supreme Court nominee.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is NPR better? My point is not that she will be nominated or not (none of us know whether that's the case), but that she is being considered for it. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk_Contribs 23:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BLP1E (subject of significant coverage for only for one thing, being mentioned as a possible SCOTUS appointee) with no prejudice against future recreation if she's actually nominated. Chetsford (talk) 23:06, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Being a Deputy White House Counsel is most definitely notable in and of itself. But also she's been OFFICIALLY listed by the President of the United States as a potential U.S. Supreme Court nominee, with a nomination very possible in the next few days. -- Evans1982 (talk) 02:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deputy White House Counsel is not a notable position. There are six of them. "she's been OFFICIALLY listed by the President of the United States as a potential U.S. Supreme Court nominee, with a nomination very possible in the next few days" is just WP:CRYSTAL. KidAd talk 02:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As of now we have a notability standard for judges which specifically excludes names merely suggested by the White House from inherent notability. If this article happens to be deleted, and the next day she is named as the nominee, the article can be undeleted with the flick of a switch. BD2412 T 02:05, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per KidAd, Deputy White House Counsel is a relatively minor post. We have a wide body of precedence that sub-cabinet officers below the rank of Assistant Secretary (Deputy Assistant Secretary, in other words) have no inherent notability. And Deputy White House Counsel is certainly less important than a Deputy Assistant Secretary. Unlike a DAS, a Deputy White House Counsel does not have rulemaking authority, they oversee a smaller staff, and they're paid less (Todd earns a salary equivalent to Level V - the lowest level - on the Executive Schedule according to Ballotpedia). Chetsford (talk) 04:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete As Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, it is unknown what her notability may be in the future. As it stands right now, it is not substantially expressed with these sources. Trillfendi (talk) 15:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment In the extremely unlikely event that President Trump nominates Todd for Supreme Court before this discussion closes I will change my vote. I am almost tempted to say keep the discussion open one more week to make it so we probably close after President Trump names a Supreme Court nominee, but it is very hard to know what time table we will see a nominee named. We could see one named today, we migth not see one named until October or later. I expect we will see one named by the 28th of September, but this is without knowing when Justice Ginsburg's funeral is. There are a whole lot of unknows at play, but since if she is nominated after we delete the article we can easily recreate it, I see no compelling reason to delay a decision here due to that. As I have said before, I do not think President Trump will nominate Todd.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:37, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It can always be relisted. BD2412 T 20:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Associated Press identifies her as a leading contender for Ginsburg's SCOTUS seat. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 12:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Whether or not she is ultimately nominated, this gives background to the nomination that may not be immediately available after the process has completed. While she is not notable by being famous, she is notable by being in the current news and being able to find this info out in the future is beneficial to all; deleting it seems a political move that helps no-one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mythlandia (talk • contribs) — Mythlandia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep, at least for now "...the only lawyer on Trump's shortlist who has not previously been a judge..." That seems notable to me. It appears that about 20 news stories in the past month have mentioned her. Durindaljb (talk) 08:20, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We should have a Supreme Court decision by Saturday. It makes sense to wait until then. KidAd talk 17:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep regardless of whatever dreadful choice Dumb Donald makes. There's no meaningful argument that the subject fails the GNG. Aside from the substantial coverage Todd received for being on the Trump list, Todd had previously received nontrivial coverage for her management of the White House's judicial selection process as well consideration for other judicial positions. [1][2] It's a mark of the institutional boneheadedness here that so many editors will casually dismiss positions in the White House as not worthy of notice, as opposed to positions with the WWE, Marvel Comics, or porn studio Girlfriends Films, which is why so many reasonable people living in the real world view Wikipedia as a project run by drunken adolescent howler monkeys. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 20:41, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe a consensus has formed to wait a few days until the official announcement before action is taken on this AfD, but I have some problems with the above argument. It is one big WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS rant. All because Wikipedia includes pages on pornography producers and reality television stars, it does not mean that pages for non-notable academics, lawyers, and government people should remain. Notable people should have pages. Non-notable people should not have pages for the sole reason that porn stars have pages. That is a flawed and silly idea, and it will only lead to the creation of more drek. KidAd talk 03:31, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I second Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's keep. --bender235 (talk) 19:34, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think we should question why the vitriolic haters of President Trump, those who have so little respect for the norms of Wikipedia that they engage in gratuitous insults of him, want to keep this article. This makes me suspect its very existence is a violation of NPOV rules that a certain set of extreme leftist are bent on destroying. We need to stop allowing these extremists to have any say on how Wikipedia is built. Mrs. Todd was not nominated for the supreme court, and his position as one of six deputy White House counsels is clearly not a significant enough position on its own to justify an article on her. The main keep arguments were based on a false premise, and so should be discarded and this article should be deleted with all deliberate speed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails the notability requirements I could think of. Occupies a low position in the white house; has had no independent coverage on her and most mentions (if not all) are in the context of her being placed in the list of nominees for the court (fails WP:GNG and can be a case of WP:ONEEVENT), and they include at most a short summary of her non-notable career (appears to fail WP:BASIC and WP:JUDGE); she also has not achieved anything sufficiently special or carried in high regard by any significant group of people. The sources given in her article and in this AfD did not convince me otherwise. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 05:19, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• At least some !votes in this discussion appear to be premised on the possibility that the subject would be nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court. Since that has not happened, I would suggest that participants revisit whether they continue to think that the subject is notable in the absence of this development. BD2412 T 02:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable white house staffer (t · c) buidhe 22:33, 4 October 2020 (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.