Talk:Kevin Wilshaw

Kevin Wilshaw article deleted

NOTE: I first put this comment here, then realized it should be on the Talk page of Alexf, the administrator who deleted the article. So I've re-posted it there. I'm leaving it here as well, in case anyone's interested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omc (talk • contribs) 19:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I encountered the news reports on Kevin Wilshaw yesterday and today, and came to Wikipedia to find out more about him. I was surprised to discover that the article was deleted, apparently on the exact day that he was in the news. The news articles appeared yesterday and today in many leading publications (The Guardian, Huffington Post, Business Insider, Daily Mail, Washington Post....). The Guardian describes him as "a prominent neo-Nazi," and other publications use similar wording.

If I understand it correctly, A7 means that the article lacked any indication of the importance of the subject. But since he's clearly prominent, judging from all the news reports, wouldn't it be better to revise the article to give an indication of why the subject is important, rather than deleting it because it lacks this information? Or perhaps to put a notice at the top of the article that it needs this information. Apparently an A7 is a speedy deletion, which is appropriate in cases where an administrator (you, I think) has little doubt that the reason is justified. But that does not seem to be right in this case. Instead of a speedy deletion, wouldn't it be more appropriate to *propose* deletion, then discuss it for awhile on the Talk page to reach a consensus? (Or maybe there was such a discussion, but it was deleted when the article was deleted?)

I can't understand why the deletion was justified, in light of the many news articles.

(I have to admit that I'm not fully familiar with Wikipedia's policies or the mechanics of how deletion works or how talk pages or articles might be archived. So maybe there's already been such a discussion and consensus, and I just don't know where to look for it.)

Omc (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, as I mentioned here, CSD is the new AfD. This talk page will probably also get speedied. Smooth alligator (talk) 19:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Unless someone objects, I will create the page in about a week. If someone wants to do it earlier, please do so. I hope people add info as he does seem an interesting character and he is getting a lot of media

BernardZ (talk)

I would guess the concern is that he's only known for this interview and his article links to nothing. Is this the case? Well on the second yeah, but the lack of links is not really meaningful because Wikipedia is discouraging red-links. (Why? Well that's a good question and it's a debate I've already been involved in. Part of it is some red-link names are to people who are not notable, and never will be, so were added for vanity. Others are articles deleted for proper reasons. Still others it's, IMO, to lower the rate of new articles on people though they're coy on phrasing it that bluntly. I do not really support this, but my voice on the matter was overruled.) There's also systemic issues, perhaps, on lack of links. When I made Miriam Michael Stimson she linked to nothing. This isn't a sign she's not notable, a book was largely about her, just that "chemist who was a nun" is not the kind of thing the average Wikipedian cares about. At least not on English Wikipedia. For example compare Priestley Medal to de:Priestley-Medaille. No red-links on the second, two American names red-linked on the first. (Granted the "nun" part might still be a hurdle as Wikipedia is founded by atheists and remains disproportionately atheist with a largely atheistic slant.) So anyway if lack of links is not an issue what about the first, that he's only known for this interview? Well to be honest that might be somewhat valid. I'm finding little on him outside the interview. I did find a few videos about the National Front that may mention, but I'm uncertain. So possibly it should wait until someone finds something indicating his notability extends beyond this recent event and that he's not an otherwise unremarkable former white nationalist.--T. Anthony (talk) 01:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I am quite stunned that this article has been deleted too considering how much of him has been in the press. I think it should be put back on. BernardZ (talk)

The deleting admin offered to restore it, but since the deleted article didn't have a lot of content anyway, it might be better to just create a new article from scratch and try to get as many sources as possible from before October 2017 so that people don't argue WP:NOTNEWS. Smooth alligator (talk) 19:03, 19 October 2017 (UTC)