Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Blanco White

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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) --MelanieN (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Blanco White

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

Memorial page for an attorney who does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion per WP:GNG or WP:BIO. There is one claim of notability, his induction into the IP Hall of Fame, but that's not enough to meet the inclusion criteria. PROD was removed by author without comment. Should be deleted per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. MelanieN (talk) 23:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I thank MelanieN (talk · contribs) for her extremely kind yet exceedingly painfully ill-thought out nomination of this article for the dustbin of doom. If we care to look at the article and references provided, and not what MelanieN (talk · contribs) thinks she's read, it is quite apparent that adequate sources are provided. The so-caled argument for deletion consists of WP:NOTMEMORIAL; I hesitate to point this out because it should be obvious but this isn't an inclusion argument, and it isn't even policy (WP:NOTPOLICY). The Prod was removed because of its basal stupidity. Furthermore, indications of notability are provided, most prominently an obituary in The Times. One does not receive entries in Who's Who and an obituary in The Times for being a run of the mill lawyer. Finally, FFS, heaven forbid that I write articles on slightly obscure but notable deceased public figures, instead of lists of the personal details of minor footballers and cricketers that's what wanted if you choose to take Wikipedia seriously. I am laughing so much at your lack of competence user:MelanieN. Le petit fromage (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTMEMORIAL, part of WP:NOT, is policy, FWIW. So is WP:NPA, and you seem perfectly capable of advancing your argument without resorting to personal attacks, so please strike your last sentence as inappropriate. postdlf (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 23:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 23:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 23:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Le petit fromage, I can tell you are upset about this. (However, you really shouldn't use that kind of edit summary no matter how upset you are.) Clearly this man and his family are very important to you, since you recently created Margaret Justin Blanco White and G.R. Blanco White as well as this article. Nobody wants to hear that a subject they care about might not meet the criteria for inclusion here. But Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia, and it does have to have criteria for inclusion. The basic criterion is the general notability guideline which states that the subject must have received significant coverage from independent reliable sources. The Times is certainly an independent reliable subject, and some people think that a Times obituary is all that is needed to meet the criteria. If they do, they can say so; that is why we are having a public discussion here. "Who's Who" is not as strong, since there are many Who's Who publications, some of which are based entirely on payment to be included. As for the Hall of Fame - we grant automatic inclusion for a highly significant prize such as Nobel or Pulitzer; the IP Hall of Fame does not fall in that category. The decision to keep or delete will be made by the Wikipedia community, not by any one individual, and this discussion will remain open for a week. I see that you have added some additional references; keep that up, if you can; depending on what the sources are, they might help to prove the suitability of the subject for inclusion. Please understand that I have nothing against the gentleman, or against you; I am just enforcing Wikipedia's standards here. --MelanieN (talk) 01:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:42 is not the guideline for "significant coverage" and its citation is not likely to be helpful: See WP:NOT42. James500 (talk) 13:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am familiar with the essay "NOT42" but I don't happen to agree with it. I find 42 a very useful shortcut for explaining, in simple language, what we are talking about in this kind of discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 15:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Times obituary (what I can see of it for free) says he "was the best intellectual property lawyer to have practised in England since Fletcher Moulton". This commemoration speech calls him "a giant in his field" and says that "his text book 'Patents for Inventions' became a classic for many, many years". The preface to Guidebook to Intellectual Property describes him as the "greatest of all IP lawyers". Clarityfiend (talk) 02:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Times obit plus a commemoration speech published in an Oxford journal is good enough for notability. Bacchiad (talk) 02:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Note that he was also inducted into the American Intellectual Property Law Association's Hall of Fame, posthumously. http://www.aipla.org/about/newsroom/PR/press-releases/Pages/IP-HALL-OF-FAME.aspx All together, he seems to pass WP:ACADEMIC at #1 and possibly #2, and WP:AUTHOR #3. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 03:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily satisfies GNG. An obituary in The Times is conclusive proof of notability, as is an entry in A & C Black's Who's Who, which is the original Who's Who, has an awesome reputation for only including notable individuals, and is not comparable to its imitators, some of which are scams. QC might satisy WP:ANYBIO as it "indicates pre-eminence within the profession", especially one appointed in 1969 when there were significantly fewer QCs, and is presently included in WP:LAWYERS. James500 (talk) 13:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks, all, for your comments and the additional sources - particularly the commemoration speech which finally supplies enough biographical information for a proper Wikipedia article. I intend to withdraw the nomination, but first I will add the new information to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 14:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have always considered an obituary in a major national newspaper as clear evidence of notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination after improvements to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 15:50, 14 January 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.