Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymond L. Wise

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:58, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond L. Wise

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While sitting on the board of the ACLU is certainly an accomplish, there is a dearth of information regarding this individual. I found more info on a sex offender of this same name than I did on this attorney. Accomplished, but does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:46, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Especially for someone whose work came before the internet, a New York Times obituary that summarizes its subject's career and expressly describes him as "an authority on legal ethics" stands as solid evidence of notability. More information about his work for the ACLU, such as his part in the organization's heavily-contested WW2-era policies and his later effort to adopt a constitutional amendment to incorporate all of the Bill of Rights into the 14th Amendment, can be found in books such as [1] and [2]. The Times description of him as a legal ethics scholar is supported by repeated references to his book in legal cases, bar opinions, and legal publications. [3] --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:
- The argument "I found more info on a sex offender" is no argument when it comes to online search: whoever made this comment seems very inexperienced when it comes to weighing "online" vs "pre-online" reputation. Please think more carefully before making such statements. Further, one reason to create an entry like this one is precisely to create an "online" reputation for someone who is clearly more "notable" than the sex offender mentioned above.
- Further, Wise was defense attorney for William Perl in a trial related to the Rosenberg Case. (Perhaps Wikipedia watchdogs could learn to do a little more digging themselves rather than simply vote "delete"...)--Aboudaqn (talk) 14:19, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources show notability, particularly with the edits made after the nomination was made.

As an aside, please direct your arguments on this page to the notability or lack of notability of the subject of the article. There is no need to attack the nominator for what was obviously a good-faith nomination. TJRC (talk) 00:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.