Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don M. Wilson III

Don M. Wilson III

Don M. Wilson III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Does not appear to meet notability guideline. All sources are simply proving that the said person exists (several sources are press releases), but not any sort of notability beyond that of the organization he worked for or with. JonRidinger (talk) 20:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable both before and after his retirement. See the CBC News article at http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2008/03/28/bmo-risk.html and the lengthy interview at http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0ITW/is_3_86/ai_n14897395/ Notability is established through the coverage in reliable sources; the press releases cited are there to add context but are not in themselves claims of notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I see two reliable outside sources that mention him and one "In brief" source that I am unable to access through the given link from what appears to be a financial publication. The CBC article (2008) falls under temporary notability to me since it merely states that a notable company is hiring someone. The second interview (5 years earlier in 2003) doesn't necessarily establish notability either. One interview, even with CBS, does not meet "significant" coverage and again can be a case of temporary notability, especially considering how long of a gap between that and the next mention. Unless there are more sources to show that significant coverage, I don't see how this currently meets that. --JonRidinger (talk) 05:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Keep per Eastmain. I hold articles on subjects working in fields where the object is not to attract attention to a different standard than articles on subjects working in fields where publicity is part of the objective. Unflashy figures in business, finance, or academia often have lasting historical significance disproportionate to the amount of news coverage they attract. So long as there's enough to verify that they're major players, we should document them. Ray^Talk 04:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Yes, but I'm not seeing how this person is a "major" player through the sources nor how any of his contributions have had any notable effects on his field. This significance has to be documented elsewhere before we can document it here. Did he save a major company from bankruptcy or turn an institution around financially or play a role in some kind of reform? --JonRidinger (talk) 05:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Keep: Good sources, well categorized. Would like to see some better sources for 1-5, but for now those are good. Good article, would like to see if bumped up with more info, but WP:ARS could probably take care of that. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
• Delete: (Commenting at the request of Jon Ridinger) His notability is not obvious in the article. He held some jobs that got him some attention, but the article does not describe anything noteworthy he did. For all we know he was mediocre at all of them, and just showed up at work every day. --Beirne (talk) 12:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
• Keep (Full disclosure: I was asked to look at this by JonRidinger). Don Wilson is the subject of an eight page interview published on CBS Moneywatch's web page that ends with his resume, as well as two other news articles on him (one of which I could not read). Wikipedia:Notability (people) says in part A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. It does not say they had to do the job well, though I would argue the positions he has held in the banks he was in speak for his being at least somewhat competent at what he did. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment: He doesn't have to be competent at his job. Noteworthy incompetence will also work. Just saying that he is a guy who held a few jobs does not add much to Wikipedia. It should say what he achieved on the jobs, or if he failed famously explain that. Otherwise the article is little more than who's who entry. If the article is fixed up I can switch to a Keep. --Beirne (talk) 19:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Also, being interviewed as an expert in his job makes him little different from many college professors and other experts, most of whom wouldn't be considered for a Wikipedia article. --Beirne (talk) 19:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Delete (Commenting at the request of JonRidinger) All I have been able to find is articles based off of press releases that say: "XYZ has been hired by megacorp", "XYZ leaves megacorp", "XYZ joins board of organization". Besides that there's one interview which is an extension of "XYZ joins megacorp". He did nothing notable and his current positions have nothing special about them. For this reason I feel the article fails WP:ANYBIO (1,2), WP:CREATIVE (1,2), and is best categorized under WP:1E. §hep^Talk 19:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment None of the positions this person has held are even that significant (no CEO or corporate president). I could see if he were at Chase when the financial meltdown happened and was interviewed frequently or wrote extensively in financial journals or even played a role in some major financial event. Unfortunately, in my search for notable events or contributions I have also found what Stepshep has found; mostly press releases and bios that simply tell us so-and-so is going/coming to a new company and this is his resume of things he has been involved in; notable because of the corporation, not the person (the titles usually don't even mention the name of the person, just the company). Simply being accomplished, experienced, well-rounded, and involved in community aspects does not equal notable. --JonRidinger (talk) 03:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Being a member of the Council of Foreign Relations is a pretty exclusive club (about 4300). I don't know whether all members are notable, but that makes me more inclined toward saving this article PortlandPenny71 (talk) 11:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment that's a good point. I didn't look at all the directors and former members listed at the Council on Foreign Relations article, but those I did seemed to be notable beyond the council versus notable because of the council. It doesn't seem as though membership in the council is a means of notability; rather, it's more a case of many notable people have been part of the council. It appears Mr. Wilson III was there as part of his work with JP Morgan Chase as Chase is listed as a corporate member and the source lists him as being a member during his time there (2004; he retired from Chase in 2006). So unless there has been consensus that being on the Council of Foreign Relations automatically equals notability (like exists for certain politicians or even all high schools), then that fact by itself is simply more resume information rather than a claim of notability. --JonRidinger (talk) 12:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment Being a member doesn't equal notable. There's a lot of members of the CFR (just the Ws), you'll see that Council on Foreign Relations#Notable current council members is a much smaller list. §hep^Talk 22:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

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.