Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Cooper Nott, Jr. (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Courcelles (talk) 01:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Charles Cooper Nott, Jr.
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fails WP:BIO. Seems just to have been a man who had a job and eventually an obituary. Edison (talk) 21:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete—doesn't seem to meet WP:ANYBIO, and none of the more specific sets of criteria seem to apply. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► senator ─╢ 21:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete – Fails WP:BIO; I cannot see how he is notable. — MC10 ( T • C • GB •L)  22:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The court he served on appears to have been, at the time, the state criminal trial court in New York County (Manhattan). State trial judges are not presumed to be notable just by virtue of that position; articles about them need to establish notability by some other means. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Since this AfD began, the article has been expanded to include more information which tends to establish the subject's notability, including the attempted bomb attack on his home. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep a New York Times obituary is a defacto recognition of notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment What guideline states that? Which newspaper in the world provide automatic Wikipedia notability for everyone who gets an obituary? I find no reference to this view or to obituaries at WP:BIO or at Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, so it seems to be a novel and unconvincing argument. Edison (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This says so: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Seems like a slam dunk to me. Unless you think the New York Times is not reliable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem like a novel proposition, see Articles for deletion/Carmine Nigro (January 2009 keep), Articles for deletion/Alberta Martin (January 2007 keep), Articles for deletion/Andrew Michael Dasburg (October 2007 keep), Articles for deletion/Robert Barney Dallenbach (Sept. 2006 keep), etc.--Milowent (talk) 16:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I do not think all of the articles RAN has been writing are justifiable, but this one is. We have consistently accepted a NYT obit as a criterion DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The article provides ample reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability, and the NYTimes obituary makes this a definite keep. Alansohn (talk) 04:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Agree with the other keeps on this. An obituary like that in a major newspaper, isn't something done for anyone not notable.   D r e a m Focus  06:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have reopened this discussion because I was mistaken in closing it as speedy keep. PleaseStand (talk) 16:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't appear to pass GNG or BIO. AniMate  19:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep "State" judge or not, the individual meets notability through WP:GNG... and for someone born in 1869, that works for me. Stub needs expansion per available sources.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Trial judges are not notable, see WP:POLITICIAN. Gattosby (talk) 02:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment struck as contribution of a blocked sock. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Trial judges can be notable, under the GNG or other notability guidelines. No comment on whether this one is. Buddy431 (talk) 03:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Gattosby is a dirty dirty blocked sock, pay no mind to his "delete."--Milowent (talk) 04:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG.--Milowent (talk) 04:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The page is refeenced and the fact he was judge that somebody perhaps wanted to blow up makes him notable. If he was not notable for being a judge he ceratinly was for the bomb attack on his doorstep. If he was newsworthy/notable (in his life-time) that should be good enough for Wikipedia today. Or is the project running out of space?   Giacomo   13:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment It is a real stretch to claim automatic notability for Judge Nott because a bomb went off near his house when he was away,  when the illiterate and inept bombers actually wanted to blow up someone else with a similar name. Having been in a news story is not sufficient, per WP:NOTNEWS. Edison (talk) 16:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTNEWS means we can't have an article on the bombing. It doesn't address whether Nott has significant coverage in reliable sources including the bombing article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Again "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." You can argue that the reasons the reliable sources provided the significant coverage weren't really important, but Wikipedia doesn't care about importance, just notability and verifiability. I don't think we can deconstruct why people are notable like socialites and reality show stars, we just have to accept that they receive significant coverage in reliable sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * weak keep per DGG. side note; NYT obit automatic notable? seems discriminatory... Turqoise127 (talk) 18:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. The automatic NY Obit & mistaken identity arguments are extremely tenuous claims to notability imho, the former is most definitely not codified practice, the latter is a mere non-consequential coincidence, and the article contains pretty much nothing else but that. MickMacNee (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. If a lawyer with an obituary can stay, surely a judge with a bigger obituary can stay.   Wknight94  talk  20:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Who says that can stay? It was a 'no consensus', and a rather shabby looking Afd. Voting 'keep' here on the strength of your apparent umbrage in not getting your way in that decision, is pretty ludicrous. MickMacNee (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * FWIW, accepting NYT obits (and obits in the London Times also) is indeed established practice. It's not "codified" in the sense of being in the guidelines, because a list of specific sources that are accepted as notable is not generally included in formal guidelines, as it tends to fossilize them and encourage people to say nothing else will be accepted. Cites to previous discussions will be forthcoming if needed. I know we don't go by formal precedent, but we do try to be rational enough to decide similar things similarly.  DGG ( talk ) 22:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would very much welcome examples of 'keep, NYT obit' being an Afd lock, but I rather suspect that in other cases, there will be other evidence of notability aswell, either in the article or in sources, which is not the case for this article, when you discount the mistaken identity and the relative level of office. I have only ever once even dared to write a biography based soley on the strength of an obituary (actally, two obits, and a book ref), and that guy was a decorated war hero, and I am to this day still unsure whether the article is acceptable. MickMacNee (talk) 23:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * @MickMacNee, my apparent (nonexistent) umbrage = straw man. I have no umbrage - I don't take AFD nom's personally.  I couldn't care less that that article was kept - but it sets a notability precedent that this article surpasses.  Not so ludicrous then, eh?  Now ease up please and do take my example, i.e. don't take umbrage with an AFD result.   Wknight94  talk  22:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As a no consensus, it sets no precedent by definition. If you couldn't care less, then simply don't mention it. It's not like that article is now the gold standard to which all others will be measured by now is it? MickMacNee (talk) 23:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You have quite a talent for twisting my words incorrectly. Could you stop please?  When I say "I couldn't care less", I merely mean I am not upset about it in any way - as you implied I was.  As for a standard, that article about a less notable person still exists so that's a good enough standard for me.   Wknight94  talk  23:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe its good enough for you, but I am sure most right minded editors, and hopefully the closer here, know that this is about as bad a way of framing a deletion rationale as you can get, per WP:OSE, and will simply discount your opinion if you don't add anything sensible to it. To illustrate the absurdity, I could go and Afd it again right now, and that would pretty much invalidate your rationale here wouldn't it? Well, probably not, because this afd would have to be closed a day earlier, but I'm sure you get the point. To put it bluntly, you want to use as a precedent, an Afd where the number of invalid keep opinions actually outweighs the number which attempted to give a policy backed rationale (two by my count), end even then, that definition is shaky. Based on those two votes, we might as well work up the Notable Obituary=Notable Person guidline right now, because that's pretty much what you are saying with this argument that that article/Afd outcome is now the acceptable standard for notability. Madness. MickMacNee (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 *  On the fence Delete. I reject the notion that a NYT obit, by itself, establishes notability, but it's certainly direct, detailed coverage of the man. So combine the obit with some other coverage, and he just might squeak by. If someone with access to the other cited NYT articles (the November 7, 1913 and June 3, 1919 article) can confirm that they actually discuss the man in detail, and not just mention him in passing or exclusively in reference to a specific event, then I'll change my !vote to weak keep. And if more substantial coverage is found, then I'd be a full keeper. Basically, I'm looking for WP:BIO to me conclusively met. Yilloslime T C  00:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ?? The only source not accessible to me is the NYT Obituary, and I have no subscriptions. You need to click 'View Full Article' to get them in pdf form. The 1913 article is a tiny piece, whose main subject is actually Arthur Train, who is replacing Nott as ADA. All it says is that Nott was being elected to the Sessions bench. That's it. The 1919 article is as you would expect, all about the bombing. It gives as much bio detail about Nott as is necessary for the reader to realise the bombing was a case of mistaken identity. MickMacNee (talk) 00:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for straightening me out, MickMacNee. Having now read the articles, it's apparent that neither cover his life or career directly or in any sort of detail, so I've changed by !vote to delete. Yilloslime T C  01:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak keep per WP:BASIC. The NYT obit is in-depth coverage, the other three NYT articles much less so, but probably adds up to enough. As an aside, I would argue that historical subjects are at a disadvantage in finding coverage compared to modern people. The encyclopedia is richer by the inclusion of biographies of those who may have been just as notable in their day as our current celebrities (for whom there is little problem in finding press coverage). --RexxS (talk) 00:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Seriously? Do you really think that finding coverage of a notable judge who worked in the first half of the 20th Century would actually be that difficult a task? Really? We have three sources here on a plate already, an obituary, a coincidence, and a routine news article. I don't think we are talking Library of Alexandria type obstacles here to be giving out such free passes at Afd. MickMacNee (talk) 00:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Why don't you try to breathe a bit. You're going way too far here.  Calm down please.   Wknight94  talk  01:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes seriously. You have already seen the difficulty in accessing his obituary. An equivalently eminent judge nowadays would have obituaries readily accessible in a dozen print or online sources. In an era where public interest was far more focussed on issues like crime, rather than pop-singing, the judge who presided over the second trial of James Joseph Hines would certainly have been far more of a public figure than today. But we have difficulty in establishing that perspective, because the further back we go, the fewer sources are available. Also I wouldn't dismiss the NYT article on the bombing so quickly as a 'coincidence', it was Nott's house that was blown up, regardless of the intended target. Add it all together and it's a long way from a 'free pass at AfD'. If you like, I'll plead guilty to asking for a borderline keep, but it is important to give some lee-way when considering deleting biographies of figures who predate the age of mass communication, lest we end up with just the bios of those who achieved Andy Warhol's "fifteen minutes of fame". --RexxS (talk) 01:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * We are talking about 1939 here, not 1739. Accessing a rare manuscript is difficult. Paying for an NYT subscription, or walking to the local library, is not. The burden of proof is on you to show he was a public figure, not simply assert he might have been and it's just a bit difficult to check the facts right now. 1939 in music is overflowing with biographies. No issue there it seems. BURDEN applies whether the biography is about someone from 1939 or 2009. And the bombing is a nothingness, a simple case of NOT#NEWS. MickMacNee (talk) 03:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And that is why there is no article on the bombing itself. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Keep. Historically significant, long-serving judge per above comments. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes 70 years ago, there was a dearth of sources compared to today. I took a look at Harry James a random biography from 1939 in music – not a single contemporary source; all seven sources online. Then take a look at modern figures who are famous for being 'judges' (in today's pop-culture orientation): 39 year old Amanda Holden has 14 references; Simon Cowell has 58, and all of them online. You make a serious mistake by attempting to make historic figures strictly meet standards designed to cull non-notable garage bands. This article, of course is NOT about the bombing as reported in the NEWS, but it is clear that an element of that story is that it concerns Charles Cooper Nott the a public figure, rather than Charles Cooper Bloggs, the local milkman. I agree it's not in-depth coverage, but "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability". I'm still firmly of the opinion that the in-depth coverage in the obituary, plus the multiple minor contemporary references, add up to notability for someone born 140 years ago, even if we would be surprised to find such meagre sourcing for a notable judge born just 40 years ago. --RexxS (talk) 03:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Detailed accounts of a judicial reasoning (how did the judge arrive at the decision in a notable public case) are in-depth coverage. And I struggle to see the point what makes a case tried before 1939 different from a case tried in 1940. Could you please direct me to a policy that draws the line through 1939? East of Borschov (talk) 13:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to have misunderstood my requirements completely. I am asking for evidence of sources, not online sources. I really don't know what your beef is with pop-culture, but it's really got sod-all to do with this Afd, or how Wikipedia judges the notability of historic figures. MickMacNee (talk) 14:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that I haven't made myself clearer. For any modern figure, there are multitude of contemporary sources, many online which are easily accessible. For historical figures, there are obviously no online contemporary sources, and in general fewer contemporary sources can be found - in addition, those will tend to be more inaccessible. The guideline at WP:BASIC is taken to mean two substantial sources = notability; or multiple less-substantial sources = notability. One could assume that one substantial source + "some" less-substantial sources = notability, but the "some" is ill-defined and has to be a matter of judgement. All I am asking is that the closer, when exercising that judgement on how many makes "some", gives allowance for the fact that fewer of those sources will be found than if Nott were a modern subject. That is absolutely pertinent to to this AfD, and with how Wikipedia judges the notability of historical figures, especially in borderline cases. Is that clear now? --RexxS (talk) 21:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It would simply be easier to say all session judges are auto-notable, than make the assumptions you want to make. It flies in the face of all other pertinent N-type guidance, but at least it saves people the hassle of going down the library if they are wirting about the pre-internet age. a.k.a. 99% of written history. MickMacNee (talk) 01:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hyperbole. This is nothing to do with session judges; it concerns whether an individual who has one substantial source plus a handful of less substantial ones should have an article on Wikipedia. It is indeed unfortunate that editors who wish to write biographies about historic figures often have to put in the leg-work (as happened here). It's one of the reasons why we have 470,000 BLPs, but only 840,000 biographies in total. It would seem that your 99% of living history is grossly under-represented on Wikipedia. I'm not asking for a change to our guidelines. I'm simply asking that when someone makes a judgement call based on those guidelines (as we're requesting the closer to do here), they bear in mind the paucity of sources for historic figures compared to the multitude for contemporary ones. --RexxS (talk) 02:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * keep. Unfortunately, notability criteria for dead judges are far higher than for women engaging in sex on camera. Especially when it comes to campaigning against a single user and when the article subject is obscured by the shadow of his greater father. That said, there's far more news coverage of Nott Jr. that is now in the article. Over a thousand NYT articles (I confess I only checked the first sixty-something). His nomination in 1927 elections was a matter of heated, well-publicized debate. So was the 1939 case against Hines. So was the 1921 case against policeman Cornelius J. Flood (it was sort of Rodney King case for its time), the 1923 case against brokers Fuller and McGee etc. The Frederick Edel death sentence (which was commuted by none other than F. D. Roosevelt). etc. East of Borschov (talk) 13:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Which comments? MickMacNee (talk) 19:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Virtually all of the "keep" comments. I also respectfully question the wiki-priorities of anyone devoting substantial effort to seeking deletion of this article or ones like it. In any reasonable listing of the problems affecting Wikipedia, the existence of an allegedly-borderline-non-notable article about a judge from the previous century would rank in, approximately, eight thousandth place. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've got to write this great comment down :) Dr.K. λogosπraxis 00:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Anyone who doesn't see the obvious downside of keeping non-notable articles, really really should not be talking as if they know what the true priorities of Wikipedia are. Still, I guess we are really not going to shake this idea that the "previous century" was an information dark-age, so I guess it's here to stay, and hang the consequences for it, and the rest. I await in eager anticipation of anybody adding something to this article that asserts notability, beyond long lived session judge who lived in the dark ages, and had his house blown up for no reason to do with him at all. Although judging by the low expectations being shown here, that's never going to happen. I got 99 problems and articles aint one. MickMacNee (talk) 01:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely aghast at the idea of this article being kept. We got it.  Let's move on.   Wknight94  talk  02:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, partially on the basis that he is notable enough for his own Wikisource entry. Juliancolton (talk) 02:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Upon further review, it seems the Wikisource entry is actually on his father. Juliancolton (talk) 02:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep NYT coverage alone would be sufficient. Also if you're notable enough to attract targetted bombers, you're probably notable enough for hereabouts. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously you didn't read the article or this AfD very carefully, as evidenced by the fact that only 3 minutes elapsed between your !vote here and your !vote at another, RAN-related AfD, and the fact that Nott was not the intended target of the bombing. So whether or not attracting bombers makes one notable, the argument is irrelevant here. Driveby !voting is contrary to the notion that AfDs are reasoned discussions. Yilloslime T C  23:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * One gets the impression that 'keep' !votes on this AfD causes steam to escape from your ears!--Milowent (talk) 01:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a pleasing image. I think he just needs to learn to read more quickly. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Too bad you read the article so fast you skipped the part about how the bomb was intended for someone else. Comprehension is one goal in reading. Edison (talk) 20:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps he had read the source as well as the article. The two bombers died in the blast and their intentions are mere speculation. The headline "Wreck Judge Nott's Home" is a pretty clear indication that Nott was sufficiently well-known to make it a key point of the news story. Comprehension is indeed invaluable, but you need to read the whole story to understand it. --RexxS (talk) 22:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's obvious from AD's !vote that he thought the bombers targeted Nott, and it's obvious both from our article and the sources it cites that Nott was most likely not the target. Yilloslime T C  22:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a long way short of obvious. The source says "The similarity between the names of Federal Judge John C. Knox, who has handled many cases against the reds, was recalled, and the police expressed the opinion that the Federal official may have been the person aimed at." (my emphasis) That's an opinion that someone else may have been the target, and is substantiated nowhere. The singular fact remains that Nott's home was bombed along with others, but his name made the headline. --RexxS (talk) 22:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You miss the point: I don't care at all whether Nott was or was not the intended target. What I do care about, though, is that editors participating in these discussions carefully consider the article as well as any discussion that has preceded their vote. Reflexively voting !keep or !delete doesn't do the project any good. It's blatantly obvious from the amount of time between Dingley edits and his misstatement of facts from the article that he hasn't actually done the due diligence that's expected of editors participating in these discussions. Neither our article nor the NYT article say he was "targeted" by the bombers, in fact both say he was most likely not the intended target, but it's apparent from Dingley's !vote that he thinks he was the target. Yilloslime T C  23:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If we're going to edit collegially in this project, then we have to learn to assume good faith in others. It does you no credit to disparage fellow editors based on your assumptions about what they have or haven't read. AD has possibly spent as much time as you studying the article and its sources. For what it's worth, neither the article nor the source state that "he was most likely not the intended target". The source says (1) what I quoted above - that police opinion was that Knox may have been the intended target; (2) the NYT had a different opinion stating "Judge Charles Nott, Jr., upon whose life an attempt was made by means of a bomb placed in the cellar area-way of his home ...". We are each free to reach our own conclusions about what happened from the source. It is not unreasonable to conclude that Nott may have been the target. The point here is indeed not whether he was the target or not, but that AGF requires us to accept that others are acting in good faith, and suspending AGF requires far more than the assumption that your own interpretation is the only correct one. --RexxS (talk) 01:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Ample sources, ample evidence of notability. Edward321 (talk) 02:45, 5 June 2010 (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.