Talk:P. Thomas Thornbrugh

Notability
It has been proposed to delete this article for lack of notability. I have added an explicit statement to the introductory section describing at least two reasons that I find the subject notable. I am proposing that the article be retained.

In general, appellate judges often do not seem notable because of the nature of their work, especially at levels below the U.S. Supreme Court. First, the outcomes very often do not impact the welfare of very large numbers of the American public, hence do not attract the interest of the public or the reporting press. Second, the impact of a single judge on a group decision is usually hard to determine. How is one judge to be more notable than another? Obviously, some have become notable for committing some crime. But, what kinds of positive acts make one notable? In the Helmerich & Payne case, I consider that Judge Thornbrugh is notable because he dug deeply enough into the case to find a fact that ultimately determined the outcome of a case and righted a wrong (supposedly the objective of every appellate court). In addition, he was fortunate in that the press picked up the story and publicized it. How many such incidents may have gone unreported?

Thank you for considering this issue. Bruin2 (talk) 15:47, 27 June 2018 (UTC)