Deletion of Thomas Blanco White

Comment: per above. Note that he was also inducted into the American Intellectual Property Law Association's Hall of Fame, posthumously. http://www.aipla.org/about/newsroom/PR/press-releases/Pages/IP-HALL-OF-FAME.aspx  All together, he seems to pass  at #1 and possibly #2, and  #3. &ndash;&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ACADEMIC||WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: Le petit fromage, I can tell you are upset about this. (However, you really shouldn't use that kind of edit summary no matter how upset you are.) Clearly this man and his family are very important to you, since you recently created Margaret Justin Blanco White and G.R. Blanco White as well as this article. Nobody wants to hear that a subject they care about might not meet the criteria for inclusion here. But Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia, and it does have to have criteria for inclusion. The basic criterion is the |general notability guideline which states that the subject must have received |significant coverage from independent reliable sources. The Times is certainly an independent reliable subject, and some people think that a Times obituary is all that is needed to meet the criteria. If they do, they can say so; that is why we are having a public discussion here. "Who's Who" is not as strong, since there are many Who's Who publications, some of which are based entirely on payment to be included. As for the Hall of Fame - we grant automatic inclusion for a highly significant prize such as Nobel or Pulitzer; the IP Hall of Fame does not fall in that category. The decision to keep or delete will be made by the Wikipedia community, not by any one individual, and this discussion will remain open for a week. I see that you have added some additional references; keep that up, if you can; depending on what the sources are, they might help to prove the suitability of the subject for inclusion. Please understand that I have nothing against the gentleman, or against you; I am just enforcing Wikipedia's standards here
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:42)

Comment: I thank {{user|MelanieN}} for her extremely kind yet exceedingly painfully ill-thought out nomination of this article for the dustbin of doom.  If we care to look at the article and references provided, and not what {{user|MelanieN}} thinks she's read, it is quite apparent that adequate sources are provided.  The so-caled argument for deletion consists of ; I hesitate to point this out because it should be obvious but this isn't an inclusion argument, and it isn't even policy ().  The Prod was removed because of its basal stupidity. Furthermore, indications of notability are provided, most prominently an obituary in The Times.  One does not receive entries in Who's Who and an obituary in The Times for being a run of the mill lawyer.  Finally, FFS, heaven forbid that I write articles on slightly obscure but notable deceased public figures, instead of lists of the personal details of minor footballers and cricketers that's what wanted if you choose to take Wikipedia seriously.  I am laughing so much at your lack of competence
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTMEMORIAL||WP:NOTPOLICY)