Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wesley Charles Jacobs Jr.

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. There's a rough consensus that the MacArthur Fellowship is a strong enough indicator of notability to warrant an article as a "significant award" under WP:ANYBIO, and while the other sources seem very sparse, the current stub state of the article seems to be sufficiently verified to avoid any egregious WP:BLP or WP:V policy violations. ~ mazca ^talk 23:29, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley Charles Jacobs Jr.[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Unable to locate any significant biographical details in secondary sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:45, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is easy to find coverage such as MacArthur Fellows: The First 25 Years. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd say a MacArthur Fellow at least comes close to WP:ANYBIO, but not totally sure. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons cited above. WP:Not paper 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:17, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing any real notability other then one (not major) award. A few trivial mentions.Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of "significant coverage" in WP:RS. WP:ANYBIO is only intended to show who is likely to be notable and creates a rebuttable presumption (see WP:NOTABILITY) but does not itself guarantee it. The lack of any "significant coverage" in WP:RS indicates that it isn't met. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:36, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brigade Piron (talk · contribs), I would love to see you write to The Republican, or controlling agent, and tell them they are not/nor have ever been a reliable source of information considering they have been reporting on notable topics since the 19th century. Let me know how that goes.Tsistunagiska (talk) 17:56, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A newspaper report of someone receiving a prize is not, by any stretch of the imagination, "significant coverage". Did I ever claim that no WP:RS were present? —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per WP:NBIO. I fixed all the citations, which were in poor shape but the information was there (just moved). One particular citation [1] explains Jacobs' work leading to the award. I wouldn't call the award minor. Today, "The MacArthur Fellowship is a $625,000, no-strings-attached award to extraordinarily talented and creative individuals as an investment in their potential." [2] Normal Op (talk) 20:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So let's include him at MacArthur Fellows Program. At best, this is a WP:BLP1E case. He meets no conceivable notability criteria. WP:NBIO is guidance only. —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:18, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not seeing SIGCOV in multiple RS to satisfy WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 07:49, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Apparently he's more commonly known as "Wesley Chuck Jacobs", and with that I found a few other mentions of him: a study/paper I don't have access to, an appeal he lost in a criminal case, a news article with accusations of financial shenanigans, and more of the financial story. Normal Op (talk) 08:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He is a MacArthur Fellow therefore meets notability criteria WP:ANYBIO Netherzone (talk) 14:25, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's like I'm living in the twilight zone or something. Everyone understands that you can start with these other guidelines but if they do not meet the requirements then you move on up the chain all the way to WP:GNG which rules them all. The supreme notability guideline supersedes ALL others. Please check it against that guideline before you nominate for deletion. A) Is it sourced? B) Is the source independent, which means not owned or affiliated with the subject? C) Is it a reputable, reliable and verifiable source? D) Does the source significantly cover the subject of the potential/existing article? E) Are the sources accessible by a large group of people (national/international)? If you can answer those questions with a yes then the subject meets Wikipedia's supreme guideline for notability and deserves an article if you want to write one. It's not intended to be subjective like many other guidelines and essays. Quite literal and should be taken as such.Tsistunagiska (talk) 17:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of these guarantees the subject is notable. It even says that in the policy you just quoted. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:20, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677: "Presumed" is not bold like the other items so it is not as important as the other criteria but is to be taken into account. In your nomination for deletion you didn't use or mention WP:GNG as a consideration. If it meets all of the bold criteria then it is considered notable enough for an article. ALL other guidelines are subservient to that guideline and can not preclude an article from inclusion so long as it meets the criteria of the literal WP:GNG.Tsistunagiska (talk) 19:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not how anything works. The fact that someone is mentioned in a WP:RS, even in several, does not mean that there is "significant coverage" as WP:GNG makes very clear. We are talking about "significant coverage" in an objective sense, not relative to its prominence within the source. —Brigade Piron (talk) 12:21, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep MacArthur Fellow proves it is a notable person. I believe they are better suited at judging someone's notability than a random group of people showing up here anyway. Dream Focus 22:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We've always accepted the MacArthur Fellowship as a clear designator of nobility, and I see no reason to disagree with that choice here. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 00:08, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of MacArthur Fellows - it doesn't matter if he's won a award, that doesn't guarantee notability, it just creates a presumption. Here, we don't have any sources with which to write an article; literally all we have is that he won the award, and the award bio. We don't even know when he was born. And it's a BLP to boot. If there are more in-depth sources found or written in the future, the redirect can always be expanded into a proper biography. Le v!v ich 20:32, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:ANYBIO a MacArthur Fellowship is a notability pass. Lightburst (talk) 13:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the MacArthur Fellowship. — Toughpigs (talk) 05:13, 3 October 2020 (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.