Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whitmore Gray


 * 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 delete. Michig (talk) 09:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Whitmore Gray

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable law academic. No independent references at all. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. If he is notable it would probably be for his translations in the 1960s and maybe 1970s of Soviet and Japanese legislation, for example here.  But I haven't been able to find anything describing the impact of those works, nor does anything appear in the article.  JohnInDC (talk) 04:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Full professors at major universities, including their law schools, are almost always notable. In this case, his publications record shows him as an expert in his subject, especially of Soviet and Japanese commercial law.  DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Except that CV is from his employer, so it's not independent and thus can't be used to support notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And except that there is no evidence of notable scholarly impact at Scholar. Publications far impact, not in major journals or presses, and with few citations. Would very much be near the bottom of even a minor law faculty in academic visibility.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 21:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley   Huntley  00:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. He doesn't really pass Notability (academics); no evidence of signficant impact of his work.   dci  &#124;  TALK   00:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG Mediran  talk to me! 00:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete At tail end of career and yet falls far short of Notability (academics), with just a few Scholar articles, spaced far apart and with trivial impact; no evidence of major editorship or leadership function. As befits law schools, even at a top university, being faculty is hardly evidence of notability or impact.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The fact that his employer published his books lessens the impact, but still shows notability and does not apply to the book chapters or journals listed.  Th e S te ve   10:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Based on the discussion above, there doesn't seem to be anything going for this biography other than "the subject worked at a top 20 school." That's not sufficient for notability by our guidelines, nor is it an indicator that there will ever be enough interest to flesh out a proper article. Ray  Talk 18:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per JohnInDc. Lord Roem (talk) 04:44, 9 December 2012 (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.