Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Blanco White
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
— user:MelanieN, 23:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:NOTMEMORIAL||WP:NOTPOLICY (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not)