Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harold S. Wright

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. Singularity 04:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harold S. Wright

Harold S. Wright (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Most of the article is fairly inconsequential biography, but the contents of the 'Other achievements' section rise above being an assertion of note. On the whole, I'm not really sure about the article, so rather than delete I've brought it here. Splash - tk 23:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep unless subject objects, notability is reasonably establsihed and the article is okay but lacking refs, SqueakBox 23:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. I don't consider being chairman of the Arizona War Memorial Commission notable enough. Clarityfiend 00:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, I see no particular notability here, just a successful attorney who did some volunteer work. Accomplishment is not notability. --Dhartung | Talk 03:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I dont really see what his claim to notability is either Corpx 04:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The article claims that he was chairman of an organization that does not have its own entry. The website for the U.S.S. Arizona Memorial (I'm not even sure that's what the article is referencing) does not mention Wright. As far as I can tell he is a corporate lawyer in Hawaii. Nothing against that, but there are hundreds, if not thousands, of corporate lawyers in Hawaii, and that alone is not enough to get past the notability threshold. JCO312 04:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep It's hard to judge the notability of lawyers when they have not been engaged in spectacular cases. Who's who in america is selective-- as compared to the subsidiary works such as Who's who in American Law, in the east, in Technology etc etc., and i give this some credence. DGG (talk) 21:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This article is little more than a biography. And biographies of non-notable people aren't suitable for inclusion in wikipedia. The only claim to notability would seem to be the Arizona War Memorial Commission...but there aren't even references to support that claim and, even if that claim was established, the Arizona War Memorial Commission isn't notable. Notability is not "reasonably established" by inclusion on one of hundreds of commissions in Arizona...Let us look to the "General notability guideline" for guidance: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Significant coverage requires "sources [that] address the subject directly in detail [and is] more than trivial." This person fails the guideline, especially the "significant coverage" requirements. And, as policy tells us, "Notability is not temporary....Thus, this guideline properly considers the long-term written coverage of persons and events8." Long-term written coverage? None. Significant coverage? Zero. I submit this article must be deleted. JasonCNJ 00:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I don't see anything more than the routine career of a successful professional, so he's only likely to be of interest to friends, family and associates. Mowsbury 19:24, 18 August 2007 (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.