Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Blair Scribner


 * 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The result was   Withdrawn. We all make mistakes :) Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 09:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

John Blair Scribner

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No reason given as to why this person is notable. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep president of the most important 19th century american publisher 1871-1879. Full obit in Nw York Times. There will be other sources, such as the published histories of the company.  Incomprehensible nomination. DGG (talk) 23:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, very important American publisher. And this particular president of the company is notable ... why? Clearly, not every President of a notable company is notable themselves. I'm not a deletionist - give me a good reason why Scribner is notable and I'll absolutely withdraw this straight away. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 00:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * actually, if the company is important enough, the present pretty nearly always is notable--and see what RAN said below: DGG (talk) 08:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you are confusing Wikipedia notability with the Guinness World Record notability. You don't have to be the biggest, fastest or smartest. The media just needs to take notice of you. When the NYT publishes your obit, you are notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep President of a major publishing form AND major college, all backed by an obit in the nation's paper of record. The notability standard is satisfied. Alansohn (talk) 00:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  00:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Historic United States businessman, publisher, etc. This is one of the reasons Wikipedia exists.  No question, keep.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable enough. The publishing house is important and (more importantly) he's been covered by a reliable source in significant detail. Protonk (talk) 03:28, 25 July 2008 (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.