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. Black Kite 00:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

W. L. Shurtleff

[edit]

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

A one sentence article with a photograph of dubious provenance is all this article is. I understand the defendant this man represented was notorious back in 1906, but that does not make his lawyer notable enough for this encyclopaedia. Unless this attorney was known for anything other than this one trial he did, I would regrettfully have to recommend deletion of this fine article. Torkmann (talk) 01:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Library of Congress is dubious? Have you ever used The Google on The Internets before you nominate. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability neither asserted nor demonstrated. Qworty (talk) 03:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I expanded the article significantly. He wasn't just a lawyer. He was also a newspaper owner, a political organizer and a member of the government committee which oversaw the Protestant school system in Quebec. (While he was alive, Quebec had two separate publicly-funded school systems, one Catholic, the other Protestant.) -- Eastmain (talk) 08:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk) 08:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for what it's worth, the New York Times described him merely, in one case, as "one of the lawyers retained by Harry Thaw". Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets all requirements for notability and verifiability. I have a sneaking feeling that Torkmann and Drawn Some are the same person. Both are wikistalking me and nominating my articles for deletion, and not doing much else. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Eastmain's expansions (article now passes general criteria of WP:N through significant independent reliable sources). Another fine rescue, good work. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:37, 9 November 2009 (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.