Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blake Whitney Thompson


 * 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   no consensus. --MuZemike 02:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Blake Whitney Thompson

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Unremarkable lawyer/financier. A clean up of the poor sources and dead links would leave very few references. The subject has made a complaint that the presence of templates "makes me look like less of a businessperson". Deletion would be a solution to that problem. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Per significant coverage in reliable sources:, , , , , , . Northamerica1000 (talk) 18:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't follow all of your links, but the first few made me wonder if you had read the entire articles. Have you, or are you relying on summaries? Also, the ones I read were passing mentions, not significant coverage. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I tagged some of the existing bad citations to help you identify them. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Reliable sources added to the article, that address the topic in detail:
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 17:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 17:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 17:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 17:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Are these technically reliable sources? Yes. But they're all painfully local (the SP Times ones are even in the "Neighborhood Times" section), and Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia. See WP:LOCAL and WP:BIAS. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – There isn't a disqualifier in WP:GNG regarding the geographic location of reliable sources. WP:LOCAL is an opinion essay, and not a policy or guideline. This topic appears to pass WP:GNG per coverage in reliable, third-party sources that address the topic in detail. Northamerica1000 (talk) 21:39, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep They have a picture of him and quote him in an article about his business activities. Other coverage seems to confer people think highly of his work, he successful and making tons of money.   D r e a m Focus  21:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * They also have a picture of Roger Jacques (plasterer), in the same article. Let me know when that's no longer a red link and I'll reconsider your opinion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * They consider him and his activities notable enough to coverage. They didn't just call up and get a brief quote, but got his side of the story, and thought it important enough to take a picture and publish it of him.   D r e a m Focus  21:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  17:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete In Wikipedia terms, a complete non-entity. No notability whatsoever. Forget the "sources" - I've appeared in my local paper several times (and nationally once or twice) and been contacted and interviewed by local radio, but only because I was good at doing my job and they wanted insights form professionals who were.....good at their job. Not outstanding. Just good and available. (But they didn't take my photo. Boo hoo.) So what? There is nothing in the article (or the sources) to suggest anything out of the ordinary. Emeraude (talk) 23:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And call me suspicious, but I'm always dubious when an article has been created by a user who has made just one edit, ever, Emeraude (talk) 23:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – How is the person a "non-entity" in Wikipedia terms? What do you mean specifically about "forget the sources?" The availability of reliable sources is exactly what qualifies topics for inclusion in Wikipedia. Northamerica1000 (talk) 21:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No, it's notabilty that qualifies topics for inclusion. Reliable sources are the evidence for what we include (whether of people or any other topic) and do not confer notability. I can provide all sorts of reliable sources about myself, from birth certificate to my part in the school nativity play, to my degree results, to my public appointments, to my work being quoted elesewhere, but none of that makes me notable. That has to be earned. Although the sources quoted back up what is said about the subject of this AfD, they do not, IMO, provide any evdence that he satisfies Wikipdia's criteria for notability. Emeraude (talk) 11:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources, which is the criterion for topic notability per WP:GNG. Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment – Added another reliable source to the article:
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 04:01, 30 December 2011 (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.
 * 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.