Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jay Godsall

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 delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Godsall[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. References are quotes or brief mentions. reddogsix (talk) 18:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I argue that Jay Godsall is a notable person under the “General notability guideline” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline). Specifically, the criticism is that the person is non-notable and the references are trivial - I see no evidence to support this.

On the issue of notability - "worthy of notice"[1] or "note"[2] – that is, "remarkable"[2] or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded”. Is there any question that the topic does not have reliable sources, or that the sources are not independent of each other? The diversity and independence of the references should be obvious - is this in question?

On the issue that this is trivial - is disaster relief trivial? Is the suicide rate in the Arctic trivial? Is there some question about the meaningful impact of this person’s work? Is there a question that the references are wrong in saying that solar powered fossil fuel free flight is significant and will have significant impact on the world, particularly remote areas? Is climate change trivial?

I am a long time consumer and supporter of Wikipedia content. It has changed my life for the better. I am trying to be a contributor (my first article) and I would like to learn how to improve, instead of my work being criticized generically, I’d like to be pointed to specific areas of improvement. I am trying to use the 5 pillars as the guidelines. The facts presented above are referenced with depth, breadth and independence. The article is written from a neutral point of view. The content is free, and I believe, points to further content for the community to explore and expand for the benefit of everyone.

The last two pillars are my areas of concern:

Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility - can we please point to specifics I should improve, as opposed to generic criticism.

Wikipedia has no firm rules. It is my goal to bring more content to the community and I’d like to be advised and guided by the community on how to stay within the guidelines, but also be creative about including more content. In the spirit of creating and sharing global knowledge, I believe if I learn how to contribute, I can bring more and valuable contributors to the community. Please help me. Mattskilly (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Mattskilly (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 14:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 14:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The flaw in Mattskilly's logic is that notability for Wikipedia's purposes is not defined by the value of what a person does, but by the depth and breadth of reliable source coverage they have or haven't received for doing what they do. Godsall is not the subject of these sources, however, but merely has his name mentioned in coverage that is about his company rather than being about him — literally the only source here that's about Godsall as an individual is a purely routine entry in a business directory. The sources here are largely very solid ones for the article about the company, but they are not about Godsall to the degree needed to get him a standalone article as a separate topic from the company. He can absolutely be named in the company's article, but he's not automatically entitled to have a separate article about him as an individual separate from having his name mentioned in the company's article — being CEO of a company that has a Wikipedia article is not, in and of itself, an automatic inclusion freebie that exempts a person from having to be the subject of enough media coverage to clear GNG. But the sources here aren't helping him clear GNG — they're helping the company clear GNG, but they just mention Godsall while not being about him. Bearcat (talk) 20:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you read all of the content of the sources it is clear in many of them that Godsall is just as much the subject of these sources as his company.

Godsall's early life and the founding of the company in multiple sources are more than a trivial mention even if not the main topic of the source material in some. The sources address the subject directly and in some detail. Godsall DOES have significant coverage in reliable sources and clearly meets GNG.

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

What am I missing here? I've seen several CEO's and their companies with pages that have less sources and coverage. Do you need to be a billionaire to warrant a Wikipedia page?

This guy invented a solar powered aircraft to move medical supplies into hot zones. This went on to be featured in a Wired Magazine article on how to change Disaster Relief - in intellectual property they talk about prior art to prove who deserves credit. Prior to Solar Ship he created the first company that barcoded pathogens. Prior to that he created a company to give IP rights to shamen. All this is about how humanity interacts with remote areas, which is critical for life on the planet.

This is NOT a one company person. The impact comes from a life of figuring out how to solve problems in remote areas. This is not purely routine entry for one business. Look at the reference from the University of Toronto featuring Godsall as an individual on the future of flight, in the same event as the lead rocket scientist in Canada and one of the biggest aerospace companies in the world.

I would love a champion to step up from the Wikipedia community who has more experience than I do to help keep this page alive. I'm having a very hard time seeing any reason it should be deleted and feel that the arguments set forth to delete are weak and not backed up with facts.

Please read the content of the sources and see for yourself why this article should be kept. More articles like this on Wikipedia will only make the resource a better place for all.

A high school QB that hasn't done anything for humankind gets a wiki page, but someone who has founded multiple world changing ventures doesn’t? I know children that use Wikipedia regularly and they should be inspired by people that make the world a better place, just as much as sports heros and musicians. Please help me figure this out and make it right. Asante sana. Mattskilly (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually, a high school quarterback doesn't get a Wikipedia article. And our role isn't to maintain articles about people who we deem "inspiring" — for one thing, nobody is ever going to find a Wikipedia article they weren't already looking for, so nobody's going to "discover" him or learn anything about him from here that they couldn't have learned about him from anywhere else. Our role is to maintain articles about people who meet our inclusion standards, one of which is that a person is the subject of enough sources to clear WP:GNG — which simply having his name mentioned in coverage of other things isn't satisfying. Bearcat (talk) 19:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments Bearcat, but you’re missing my argument by locking on to two small comments I made. If you were to read ALL of the sources provided for Godsall, you would clearly see that he is the subject of enough sources to clear WP:GNG. He is NOT simply just mentioned and the sources should convince anyone of this if read in their entirety. Furthermore, Wikipedia articles often show up in the top three search results and I argue that they will be found by many when searching a subject or individual for more info. There are countless examples of this, here is one for you Jack Dorsey. Wikipedia articles are a great place for people to learn more about an individual and they are discoverable. Muchas gracias. Mattskilly (talk) 16:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except that no, he's not the subject of enough of these sources to clear WP:GNG. The strong sources are about the company, not about him as an individual, and the only sources that can be honestly said to be about him as an individual are weak ones, like a directory entry in Bloomberg's business directory and Q&A interviews in which he's speaking about himself, which are not and can never be notability-assisting sources. These are solid and viable sources for the article about the company — but they aren't supporting enough content about him as a person to deem him as passing GNG. Bearcat (talk) 18:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except that yes, he is the subject of enough of these sources to clear WP:GNG. You referred to sources 4 & 12, but what about 8, 11 & 17 to name a few. I come back to my earlier argument that many sources address the subject directly and in some detail. Godsall DOES have significant coverage in reliable sources and clearly meets GNG. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. I argue once again, that these are solid and viable sources for the article about Godsall the person — and they are supporting enough content about him as a person to deem him as passing GNG. Merci beaucoup. Mattskilly (talk) 21:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

8 and 17 are fundamentally about the company rather than him, and 11 is borked by what I said about Q&A interviews in which he's speaking about himself. They can be used for secondary verification of stray facts, but they do not constitute support for notability because people can't talk themselves into wikinotability — a source has to be written in the third person, not the first, before it counts as a notability-assisting source. Bearcat (talk) 19:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. On top of 4, 8, 11, 12 & 17, there's also 2, 3, 10 & 16. Several of the sources are reliable and Godsall is mentioned in third person. Thank you. Mattskilly (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He does not have to be the sole topic of the source material, no, but he does have to be more than "mentioned". You're a new user who's been around here for less than a month, so you may not be aware of all the ins and outs of how Wikipedia actually works — but merely showing that the letter of a Wikipedia rule is technically met doesn't count for much if you're missing the spirit of the rule. Even if he doesn't have to be the sole subject of a source, there is still a degree of "about-him-ness" that a source has to surpass before it counts as a source that makes him eligible to have a standalone biography of him separately from the article that already exists about the company — but none of the sources are showing a substantive reason why we would need both an article about the company and a separate spinoff biography of him as a person.
And again: #4 is a WP:ROUTINE profile in a directory of businesspeople, not media coverage, so it doesn't assist in demonstrating notability at all, because that's a type of source that never counts as support for notability: actors do not get Wikipedia articles just because they have IMDb pages, businesspeople do not get Wikipedia articles just because they have a profile in Bloomberg Research, people in any field of endeavour do not get Wikipedia articles just because they have LinkedIn profiles, and on and so forth — directory entries like that do not count as support for notability. And #12 and #17 are Q&A interviews in which he's talking about himself — and I've already explained several times above that Q&A interviews in which a person is speaking about himself do not count as support for notability.
Wikipedia has, over the years, seen people do everything you could possibly imagine and some things you couldn't imagine to game our rules, so getting an article on here is more complicated than just "some sources are shown to verify that the person exists". We have rules about what counts as enough notability, we have rules about what constitutes a valid notability-supporting source and what doesn't, we have rules about how much sourcing has to be shown before "doesn't meet any specific inclusion test but is still keepable anyway just because some media coverage exists" is a reason to include a person here in and of itself, we have rules about how much "about" the topic a source has to be before it actually counts as support for notability, and on and so forth. It is more complicated than just reading the most basic rules and arguing that they've been met — the rules are much more complex than just "his name is present in some newspaper articles and a business directory".
So the question that needs to be answered here is not just "do sources exist?" — potential sources technically exist for lots of people who still don't actually warrant an encylopedia article at all. Rather, the question is "is there a real reason why just adding a sentence or two of content about him to the company's article isn't enough, but instead he needs to have his own standalone biography separately from the company's article?" And no, "he's inspiring" is not a valid answer to that — valid answers would be "the company's article is really long already, so a standalone biography helps to control its size" (which it isn't here) or "we can source substantial content about other aspects of his life besides just the fact of his role with the company per se" (which the sources here aren't really showing, which is why I keep pointing out that they're fundamentally about the company — because the extent to which they're "about" Jay Godsall himself doesn't extend beyond just his role with the company.) Bearcat (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I argue that Godsall is more than "mentioned" in multiple, reliable sources and this does make him eligible for a standalone biography. Yes, I'm new to wikipedia as an editor, but I've been using wikipedia for a very long time. I appreciate the job of the wikipedian and plan to continue to contribute to the community. How many reliable sources does a person need? I've answered the question of why he should have his own standalone biography and plan to build upon it. Godsall is a founder of more than just one company that has had massive impact in the world. He's had more than a trivial mention in a Harper Collins published book (I need to figure out how to source a book) and my "inspiring" comment can be stricken from the record. Grazie. Mattskilly (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. and then redirect to the company, which might possibly be notable. This is an obvious effort to make two articles for a barely notable subject that would at most justify one--the give-awayis that much of the content is simply repeated. There is no separate notability . DGG ( talk ) 06:29, 23 February 2018 (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.