Talk:Kingsley Wilson

Kingsley Wilson has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: July 16, 2025. (Reviewed version).

This article was nominated for deletion on 14 June 2025. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

Presidents of the United States: Donald Trump

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Presidents of the United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Presidents of the United States on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Presidents of the United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject Presidents of the United StatesTemplate:WikiProject Presidents of the United StatesPresidents of the United States
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Donald Trump task force.

Why has this not been made public yet?

Thanks 223.178.210.148 (talk) 07:44, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More citations are needed. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:15, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

Passed. GoldRomean (talk) 16:39, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kingsley Wilson/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: ElijahPepe (talk · contribs) 03:24, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: GoldRomean (talk · contribs) 19:10, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, picking this one up. If they don't mind again, my GA mentor Vacant0 will be overseeing this. GoldRomean (talk) 19:10, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm considering quick-failing this, per QF criteria 3. There are just 2 early life sentences, and based on what I see, her main accomplishment is being the U.S. Department of Defense press secretary - a topic mentioned in only four sentences. The rest of the article is just her political viewpoints. However, ironically, hesitant to do this so quick, so I would like your opinion Vacant0 and maybe give @elijahpepe time to respond. GoldRomean (talk) 19:18, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

QF3 is related to cleanup tags, which this article does not have. I am, however, concerned about the notability of this person, considering that most of the article is related to her political views (which does not count to notability), and there does not seem to be too much information regarding her short career. I think that the article was created prematurely. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I meant QF C1, with regards to GA C3. But do you think I should go ahead with the review? GoldRomean (talk) 23:10, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vacant0, leaning toward QF, too short because its WP:TOOSOON; long way from criteria three, broad in coverage, but I would like a 2nd opinion. Thanks :). GoldRomean (talk) 23:27, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that any of the QF criteria can be applied here because if we assume good faith has been done here, then the current state of the article already addresses everything that we know about this person. We cannot fail an article just because it is short (we can only fail the article if it does not address all main aspects of the topic and that because of it the article is short). What I'm concerned about is the notability of this person - I don't think that being a press secretary for an U.S. department means that a person can be automatically notable. I still don't understand how this person is notable. This article can be sent to Articles for Deletion. If you don't want to request deletion, I'll do it. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:17, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay! If you could take this to AfD, that would be appreciated. I'll put the nom on hold till then. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 14:29, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article is up at AfD. Feel free to comment if you want. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Starting review - I know about the AfD and understand that the article (and review) may get deleted; I don't mind - the article's quite short and I'd just rather finish it. GoldRomean (talk) 02:34, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ElijahPepe: The review is complete (in case of AfD keep). Placing on hold. GoldRomean (talk) 02:48, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's also now one verification failed tag in the article which additionally has to be fixed. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding 3a - that sounds like a problem, but considering her role, a press secretary, there could be little to no coverage about her actual work, especially because she is a press secretary of a department and not Karoline Leavitt (who also has a solid article despite her pre-2025 career). It is most likely that we'll get more coverage about her views than what she actually does (as the article currently shows). Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments! What annoys me slightly about the GA process is that we have no criteria against notability. So it is entirely feasible that a GA gets deleted for notability (but unlikely, since most would not vote against a GA at AfD, simply because it's a GA). To add to that, golly, by the criteria, a 1-sentence article with all there is to know about a very little known subject with just two sources should pass.

(Just noticed a similar discussion at WT:GAN. It's quite interesting; along with the QPQ thing, GA may be seeing some reforms soon; we'll see where they go.) GoldRomean (talk) 03:28, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous GA and FA articles have been deleted over the years, so it's not something new. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:30, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig gives 13.8%.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Probably going to change lots, but stable right now.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Image is public domain.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Comments

I have NPOV concerns; although most sources of her are criticisms, the "Views" section is largely negative. GoldRomean (talk) 02:34, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This largely seems to be an issue because of the media that we are citing this info from. I'm unsure if there's actually any "positive" coverage of her views. I don't think that removing the criticism is a solution though. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any info at all about what she's done as press sec? GoldRomean (talk) 02:48, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ElijahPepe: The AfD discussion has closed; let me know if you want to continue this review or if you want me to close it. Best, GoldRomean (talk) 17:36, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would like you to continue it. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:39, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; everything still looks okay, previous prose/source review still stands (namely the thing I said in the prose review and source 3). While I'm still bothered a bit about NPOV, it is true that there is naturally more coverage about her controversial beliefs, so I think it's ok. Failed verification tag also needs to be resolved. GoldRomean (talk) 17:45, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should be good now. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:30, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Passing. GoldRomean (talk) 16:37, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source spot-check

Source 3

Source 3 (Fandos 2023)

Article: ... and began serving as the national committeewoman of the Washington, D.C. Young Republicans by April 2023.

Source: Mostly about George Santos; no mention of Wilson.

✗ Fail GoldRomean (talk) 02:34, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldRomean: Kingsley Cortes in the article is Kingsley Wilson. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:34, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see two paragraphs about her then, still nothing about national committeewoman? GoldRomean (talk) 18:50, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source 6

Falconer 2025

Article: ... replacing John Ullyot.

Pass, never mentions Wilson specifically, but is implied. GoldRomean (talk) 02:34, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source 9

[In posts on X, Wilson has opposed U.S. military interventions, including military support for Israel and Ukraine. In July 2024, she referred to NATO as an "international HR department". Radnofsky, Gallion & Sheeley 2025]

Article: In posts on X, Wilson has opposed U.S. military interventions, including military support for Israel and Ukraine. In July 2024, she referred to NATO as an "international HR department".

Source: She specifically opposed American military support for Israel... In July, she called NATO “nothing more than an international HR department."... Wilson has also railed against U.S. funding for Ukraine...

Pass GoldRomean (talk) 02:34, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prose review

Prose looks fine, save "Department of Defense Press Secretary (April 2025–present)" should be merged with "Career". GoldRomean (talk) 02:34, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.