Alexandra Schimmer: I don't see notability arising in any of the subject's other activities, and the sources are not sufficiently independent or in-depth.  BD2412 T 20:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Ohio .  BD2412 T 20:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 21:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  Goldsztajn ( talk ) 22:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions .  Goldsztajn ( talk ) 22:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - She received a BA degree at Princeton University, her Master of Philosophy at Cambridge University, and her Juris Doctorate at Yale Law School.  She was Solicitor General of Ohio 2011–2013, and otherwise argued a case before the US Supreme Court in 2012.   Her being floated for a spot on the US Supreme Court indicates she has an impressive legal background to even be considered.  — Maile ( talk ) 21:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Her name is being floated for a circuit court of appeals, not the Supreme Court.  Her degrees are impressive, but impressive degrees do not confer notability.  I don't believe we count state solicitors general as automatically notable, and arguing a SCOTUS case is just a function of that job.  BD2412 T 21:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete would not consider the Ohio Solicitor-General position itself within the ambit of WP:NPOL so presumed notability does not apply.  Other than the National Law Journal piece, I've not found anything else to provide multiple SIGCOV reliable sourcing for a satisfactory pass of the WP:GNG .  Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 22:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep ; Solicitor General of Ohio is a "state/province–wide office" under WP:NPOL , akin to Ohio Attorney General . TJRC ( talk ) 03:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per TJRC-- Ipigott ( talk ) 07:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:NPOL .  Djflem ( talk ) 14:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment @ Ipigott , Djflem ,  and TJRC : I'm not wedded to my delete ! vote but would like to understand the justification for an WP:NPOL pass here.   Not all state wide offices are intrinsicaly notable - for example, the Delaware director of animal services is a state-wide office, but I do not think there is community consensus that the proverbial dog-catcher is accorded presumed notability.   The Ohio Socilitor-General does not sit in the Cabinet of the Governor of Ohio , and we've usually accorded state-level cabinet members presumed notability.  The Ohio Solicitor-General reports to the Ohio Attorney-General.   Certainly, I would accord presumed notability to the Attorney-General, who does not sit in the cabinet, but as chief law officer of the state is clearly a notable position.   But the solictor-general is the deputy to the AG ...  Where then is the dividing line for an NPOL pass?  Is it offices that require approval from the legislature?  (I believe the SG is not legislature approved, but appointed by the AG).  We need some agreed dividing line, otherwise we've got an endless list of statewide offices to accord presumed notability (State Librarian of Ohio?).  Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 00:17, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I was thinking exactly this.  BD2412 T 01:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Ohio Solicitor General represents the entire state in all appellate proceedings, including befor the US Supreme Court, the Ohio Supreme Court and federal appellate courts (generally the Sixth Circuit).  It is of considerably more import than animal control.  TJRC ( talk ) 00:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Two points, first, I'm not suggesting it's equivalent in status to animal control, just that the application of "state-wide office" in NPOL needs to have limits, it's not *every* state-wide position and the discussion is where to draw the limit that confers *presumed* notability.  Second, you've made assertions for the notability of the office, for which we already have an article, which is not quite the same as indicating why every holder of the office should be accorded presumed notability.  What about the Clerk or Reporter of the Ohio Supreme Court - by most of the elements you've chosen those offices would be notable - should we confer presumed notability on every reporter and clerk of a US state Supreme Court?  (IMHO, no).  Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk ) 05:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Subject does not meet the GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV .  As she was appointed to the position of solicitor general, I don't think NPOL is a suitable inherent pass here, as otherwise the secretary of chickens would be notable.  Arguing a case in front of the Supreme Court also does not lend to inherent notability.  I do agree with Goldsztajn that there needs to be more clarity here.  User:Let'srun 18:40, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Subject would not fall under WP:NPOL in my opinion as she was not a candidate for office.  She was appointed and the position is not the same level as the attorney general.  Even if it did apply, there are not enough reliable sources to create more than a few sentences without the use of WP:OR .  -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 20:40, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect : to Solicitor General of_Ohio#List of Solicitors General .  State solicitor generals do not meet WP:NPOL as they are not a statewide cabinet official.  The subject does not appear to pass WP:GNG at the moment.  Curbon7 ( talk ) 20:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would be fine with the proposed redirect.  BD2412 T 22:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect revising ! vote, good ATD suggestion from

Discussion outcome: redirect