From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus‎. Nothing sticks out to me saying a third week of this discussion would change the outcome towards a consensus to delete. Given that, there's no real reason to kick this one back in the queue. Courcelles ( talk) 13:50, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Robert A. Wilson (Virginia politician)

Robert A. Wilson (Virginia politician) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local politician fails WP:NPOL. Novemberjazz 19:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC) reply

SIGCOV describes "significant coverage" as sources that "address the topic directly and in detail." Further "[s]ignificant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." I fail to see how major state newspapers detailing Wilson's education; business, political, and civic careers; as well as his personal life fail to meet this criteria. Rockhead126 ( talk) 22:57, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:33, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep. Most of the sources seems to pass WP:GNG, but there are still significant problems with the sourcing of this article. The New York Times article only mentioned the subject in passing, and should be removed; Sources 2 and 7 are reporting on the same thing, so one of them should be removed; sources 3 to 6 were cited for the same claim, at least two of them need to be removed as well. And the "Offices and distinctions" template seems an odd inclusion, since the subject was not named in the template. Tutwakhamoe ( talk) 04:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Agree 100% it's a borderline case, even if I think GNG is ultimately met. I did have some questions and comments though:
  • Regarding the NYT article, if I reword to detail how the firm's acquisition by DDB took place during his tenure as chairman of the board, do you think that would be more acceptable?
  • Re sources 2 and 7: Is it improper to cite to separate articles primarily about the same thing/event, even if they contain different but equally encyclopedia-worthy facts? If there are two separate newspaper articles reporting on the President awarding a soldier the Medal of Honor, I don't see why one can't be used as a source for, say, what town the soldier is from and the other for what unit the soldier was serving with at the time of their heroic action. In the case of this article, the former source provides more detail about Wilson's time with Cargill while the latter talks about his being awarded the Wayne Medal. If necessary, I can probably find a different source for either of the two things.
  • Re sources 3 to 6: While I'll concede that this looks like a textbook case of citation overkill on its face, I found these sources while researching the subject and think each one of them contains valuable biographical information. Unfortunately, I've had very little free time recently and haven't had time to incorporate all of them into the article, so I dumped them all after the sentences about Wilson's career. I agree it's a bit sloppy and needs to be fixed, but it's my intention to clean it all up when I get the time.
Genuinely, thank you for the constructive criticism. Most of my work here on Wikipedia is done solo, and, while this article is certainly not representative of the best of my work...yet...I always really appreciate hearing other editor's feedback. Rockhead126 ( talk) 03:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
One last thing I forgot to address last night: I'm not sure what you mean about the "'Offices and distinctions' template." It's simply a collapsible navbox to house succession boxes. Not completely necessary here, especially with only one succession box used at the moment, but it looks clean in my opinion. Just a stylistic choice. Rockhead126 ( talk) 20:08, 11 May 2023 (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.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus‎. Nothing sticks out to me saying a third week of this discussion would change the outcome towards a consensus to delete. Given that, there's no real reason to kick this one back in the queue. Courcelles ( talk) 13:50, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Robert A. Wilson (Virginia politician)

Robert A. Wilson (Virginia politician) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local politician fails WP:NPOL. Novemberjazz 19:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC) reply

SIGCOV describes "significant coverage" as sources that "address the topic directly and in detail." Further "[s]ignificant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." I fail to see how major state newspapers detailing Wilson's education; business, political, and civic careers; as well as his personal life fail to meet this criteria. Rockhead126 ( talk) 22:57, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:33, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep. Most of the sources seems to pass WP:GNG, but there are still significant problems with the sourcing of this article. The New York Times article only mentioned the subject in passing, and should be removed; Sources 2 and 7 are reporting on the same thing, so one of them should be removed; sources 3 to 6 were cited for the same claim, at least two of them need to be removed as well. And the "Offices and distinctions" template seems an odd inclusion, since the subject was not named in the template. Tutwakhamoe ( talk) 04:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Agree 100% it's a borderline case, even if I think GNG is ultimately met. I did have some questions and comments though:
  • Regarding the NYT article, if I reword to detail how the firm's acquisition by DDB took place during his tenure as chairman of the board, do you think that would be more acceptable?
  • Re sources 2 and 7: Is it improper to cite to separate articles primarily about the same thing/event, even if they contain different but equally encyclopedia-worthy facts? If there are two separate newspaper articles reporting on the President awarding a soldier the Medal of Honor, I don't see why one can't be used as a source for, say, what town the soldier is from and the other for what unit the soldier was serving with at the time of their heroic action. In the case of this article, the former source provides more detail about Wilson's time with Cargill while the latter talks about his being awarded the Wayne Medal. If necessary, I can probably find a different source for either of the two things.
  • Re sources 3 to 6: While I'll concede that this looks like a textbook case of citation overkill on its face, I found these sources while researching the subject and think each one of them contains valuable biographical information. Unfortunately, I've had very little free time recently and haven't had time to incorporate all of them into the article, so I dumped them all after the sentences about Wilson's career. I agree it's a bit sloppy and needs to be fixed, but it's my intention to clean it all up when I get the time.
Genuinely, thank you for the constructive criticism. Most of my work here on Wikipedia is done solo, and, while this article is certainly not representative of the best of my work...yet...I always really appreciate hearing other editor's feedback. Rockhead126 ( talk) 03:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
One last thing I forgot to address last night: I'm not sure what you mean about the "'Offices and distinctions' template." It's simply a collapsible navbox to house succession boxes. Not completely necessary here, especially with only one succession box used at the moment, but it looks clean in my opinion. Just a stylistic choice. Rockhead126 ( talk) 20:08, 11 May 2023 (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.

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook