Deletion of Whip Jones (second nomination)

Comment: meets , , and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:RS||WP:BIO)

Comment: This one seems close to me, and I initially voted delete when the article was in worse shape.  I don't think the Supreme Court case matters.  Remember that there's a difference between "otability|notable" and "impressive."  It's impressive that he pushed a case to the Supreme Court.  But "a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself."  The '''case''' received multiple non-trivial mentions in published works - but only because of what the Supreme Court did.  (And, I might add, we haven't actually written an article about the case yet.  When I have a little more time I may start that, but anyone else should feel free to as well.)  I haven't seen anyone point out any similar media mentions of Whip Jones in relation to the case.  I draw a distinction between someone like Brown, Roe, or Lochner (who became notable just by having their name in the title of a famous case), and those who were just ''involved'' in a notable case without themselves receiving any press.  So I would discount the court case.  However, he seems to have received multiple non-trivial mentions in published works in regards to his skiing business and his Harvard endowment - and that's enough for me
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)