Talk:Thomas E. Autzen

Notability
There don't seem to be a lot of third-party references establishing Mr. Autzen's notability. I have nothing against him and I'm sure he was a great person, but his chief claim to fame seems to be that he was the son of a famous person and inherited a lot of money that he put to some noble use. If he is truly a great philanthropist, surely there must be more sources that describe it somewhere. Alumni magazines that note his passing don't really seem to be enough.

Although the obituary cited and the Brown alumni note indicates that Autzen Stadium was named for him, not his father. That seems like an interesting angle to explore and establish notability. --Esprqii (talk) 04:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The Brown article, like many written in recent years on the topic, did not have proper historical background on who the stadium was named after. I also don't believe the University of Oregon has done a good job documenting this.

Since Thomas J. Autzen was the original benefactor and organizer for the stadium construction, by default, he is the person the stadium is named after. Membership on the Autzen Foundation's trustee board helps show which Autzen was also in charge. You will note Thomas E. Autzen is not listed on the trustee board, but Thomas J. Autzen still is. Both are deceased. The foundation originated with the stadium construction. This should help resolve this issue AgntOrange (talk)

Philanthropist Stub

 * I have created this page as a philanthropic stub. The goal is to encourage individuals to add to it. Read more about this page type at Template:Philanthropist-stub.AgntOrange (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC).

Philanthropist Stub category was removed. I have replaced it. Removal will be treated as vandalism.AgntOrange (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC).
 * The category 'Philanthropist stub' was removed because the article has been assessed as 'Start class'. This is why it says "start class" in the project banners on this page. Do you believe the article needs to be downgraded back to stub class? Classifying the removal of the stub category from an article that is no longer a stub is absolutely not vandalism. Jezebel's Ponyo shhh  13:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

If this has been 'upgraded' to 'star class,' why are we having a discussion about deleting this page? Wikipedia seems to accept bios with less information. Now that it has been upgraded, there should be no further reason to delete.AgntOrange (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC).
 * Start class--it's not a star yet! I still think the article is pretty thin needs a lot of work in the area of citations, but the deletion discussion was eight months ago and I don't think this article is in danger of deletion now. --Esprqii (talk) 18:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)