Deletion of Clarence M. York

Comment: the nomination here is flawed: the fact that no inherent notability is attached to being a supreme law clerk doesn't mean anything if the subject passes the |general notability guideline. Just looking at the sources cited in the article there is a http://www.greenbag.org/v13n2/v13n2_peppers.pdf 14 page article in a law journal primarily about the subject, several newspaper articles covering the subject's death and the ''Courtiers of the Marble Palace'' book which devotes at least a page to him. Even without any attempt to find any additional sources that's easily enough to pass the GNG
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: per {{u|Hut 8.5}}. The state of the article is unimportant for the purposes of an AFD discussion; as long as the |subject itself is notable and |sufficient reliable sources are found to exist, the article should be kept. Hut 8.5 demonstrated both of these with the research above. As such it does not need to be incubated, per  is not cleanup. Sufficient source material to improve the article has been found; it is now up to a volunteer to actually improve it. But that can be done as part of regular article maintenance, and doesn't require any special treatment of the article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ARTN||WP:NEXIST||WP:AFD)