Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas S. White, Jr.


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Thomas S. White, Jr.

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This appears to be a vanity article about a subject with insufficient notability. This article was previously deleted by prod, but another admin declined the current prod only on that grounds. Rklawton (talk) 12:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. The 1999 Forbes piece is a substantial article which is entirely about White - him, his business practices, and his firm. (Note it is not an article about the firm, except in as much as it is his firm - it describes the customers as "his customers".) The article mentions numerous ways in which White and his business activities are notable from a business perspective - $US440M under management, various field-leading rates of return, and so forth. Forbes is a reliable sources on business topics. I don't have access to the Smart Money or Crain’s Chicago Business articles or the other Forbes articles, but I have no reason to believe they are any less acceptable as sources. Thus White is notable by the required standard of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. (He also picks up more minor coverage for example in Businessweek in 2004, and is widely quoted as an expert on financial matters, for example in a Los Angeles Times piece dated Jun 13, 1999, article author KATHY M. KRISTOF, page 2 of the business section). I would also add that the deletion rationale falls under the essay section WP:Not notable and should be discounted. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The articles are all old - so the information in the article is badly dated. In the industry, the assets he manages are peanuts. When you look at the top 100 funds in his field, his are nowhere to be seen. In short, he's a minor player with 14 year old coverage. 14 years ago when he was just starting out and got some limited coverage I would have claimed "crystal ball". Here we are 14 years later, and it's clear that I would have been right. Rklawton (talk) 19:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Notability is not temporary - see WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Regardless of whether he is a small player or a large one, or whether he was once a potential leading light and now is not, he has received substantial coverage in reliable sources in the past - it does not matter whether he still receives further coverage now. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 08:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Good grief: I never would have expected an admin with many thousands of edits to so blatantly ignore the guideline that notability isn't temporary. "The articles are all old?"  So what?  We have hundreds of thousands of articles on historical figures about whom there's been no breaking news since, well, a really freaking long time.  "[T]he assets he manages are peanuts?"  So what?  Is there a dollar amount under which the GNG no longer applies to a financial manager?  You've been around way too long for such arguments.  From where I sit, the subject meets the GNG, and I advocate Keep.   Ravenswing   10:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep = based on what is in the article, and per Arthur and Ravenswing. Bearian (talk) 19:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Passes GNG, plus per comments by Arthur, Ravenswing and Bearian. AuthorAuthor (talk) 19:26, 19 June 2013 (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.