Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lauson Stone


 * 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:05, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Lauson Stone

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:GNG. Unlike his brother, this son of Supreme Court justice Harlan F. Stone is not independently notable. Novemberjazz 21:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC) Keep Meets WP:GNG with significant coverage in the following sources:  Full New York Times obituary, virtually always a reliable indicator of notability.  Shorter Washington Post obituary.   Obituaries are not the only available sources; there are ample contemporary sources for Stone's career.  This is sufficient coverage to meet the notability guidelines independent of the subject's other notable family members. Jfire (talk) 03:39, 8 February 2023 (UTC) 
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law,  and New York.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but ↑ that's ↑ some weak sauce.


 * 1) You say that obituaries are not the only available sources; there are ample contemporary sources for Stone's career but this simply isn't true.
 * 2) The first two sources you provided are obituaries, and the second one mentions multiple people, so it hardly counts as "in depth coverage".
 * 3) Source #3 is an obituary for the wrong Lauson Stone. Did you even read the title? 🙄
 * 4) The only source that is entirely devoted to him is #4, which is a fluff piece.
 * I'd consider a redirect to Harlan F. Stone or Operation Pastorius as a potential compromise. Novemberjazz 03:45, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Scroll down in that article a bit dude. Jfire (talk) 04:05, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Which one? Novemberjazz 04:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought your original edit referred to the WaPo obit. You're right about source #3 being the wrong Lauson -- appears to be an uncle. My mistake. Nevertheless, I think there are still sufficient sources to meet GNG. I've expanded the article and added those sources. (As an aside, I don't find comments such as "Did you even read the title?" and "that's some weak sauce" to strike the collegial tone we're seeking here. Please WP:AGF.) Jfire (talk) 06:57, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not your fault, the original reply did refer to the wrong source (#4 instead of #3) before it was edited. Novemberjazz, per WP:TALK, it's generally considered bad form to edit your comments without any indication that you have done so when other users have replied to them already since it removes context.  Patar knight - chat/contributions 07:54, 8 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. His role in the saboteur trial has received modern coverage . His role in Bertrand Russell hiring controversy is also covered by modern sources . This is above trivial mentions and is in independent, reliable sources, so WP:BASIC is met, and WP:BIO1E doesn't apply, even if the article is destined to not to ever be super long. In the alternative, if there is consensus to delete, it would be more appropriate to merge to the personal life section of his father's article. Patar knight - chat/contributions 07:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep A sufficient number of quality links and objective coverage. I`d like better to keep.--Loewstisch (talk) 09:58, 9 February 2023 (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.