Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Bruce Blakeney


 * 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. Unanimous keep. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200  (talk &#124; ctrb) 00:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Ben Bruce Blakeney

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

It is of no priority and has only 1 reference, I don't see why this person should have his own article. 17:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Blankeney appears to have been a significant participant in the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal. See, e.g., Judgment at Tokyo: The Japanese War Crimes Trials and Virginia Law digital exhibition (collecting sources). An argument to merge and redirect to the tribunal is one possibility although he was an author, lecturer and translator on other topics. See, e.g., A Sketch of the Development of Japanese Law and The Cause of Japan (1952). 24.151.10.165 (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - If the article is correct, the subject played a pivotal role in an important historic event.--Rpclod (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Important, notable, and of historical significance per sources above. SL93 (talk) 00:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. The nominator, who edits mostly in popular culture, should understand that articles are kept on the basis of Wikipedia policy not on wp:Idon'tlikeit. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC).
 * Apologies for the poorness of my explanation, what I was meant to say what that it's not consideed of high importance as seen on the articles talk page, had it said "High Importance" then I would have recognized its value and not had gone through this process, but it lacks in references and I didn't see how it was notable in any way, but that's probably cause I don't often edit such articles in this subject, again I don't dislike the article I just failed to see how it was notable due to lack of indication. 02:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It is best to refrain from editing in areas that one does not have a good understanding of. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC).


 * SilentDan, I have a slightly different take. I am not troubled by your nomination.  I applaud your efforts to contribute and I encourage you to continue.  I think that the discussion aspect of the AfD process is relatively forgiving and, in fact, often results in improvements to articles.  For example, assuming that you are not an "expert" on the particular subject, your understanding is consistent with the vast majority of the readers/users.  Accordingly, they may also be confused by the article or its importance and hence I think it is incumbent on the "experts" to heed your comments. Please, remain bold.  Your contributions are appreciated.--Rpclod (talk) 13:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I am in agreement with Rpclod that SilentDan is to be encouraged rather than admonished. That said, he might be advised to familiarize himself with the pre-deletion process at WP:BEFORE as the number of references in an existing article is not a determinant of the subject's notability (in particular, "D. Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability 1. The minimum search expected is a Google Books search and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects. Such searches should in most cases take only a minute or two to perform."). 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for your feedback, I will be sure to take extra caution next time I come across such articles. 17:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Dan. My best wishes for your future editing. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC).


 * Weak keep - while I'd like better sourcing, he appears to pass my standards for lawyers. Bearian (talk) 19:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. The sources indicate notability. James500 (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.