Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingsley Wilson

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. Goldsztajn (talk) 08:51, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsley Wilson

[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)

While I have no doubt in the reliability of references provided in the article, this subject does not look notable to me for several reasons. She has only been in office since January, with there being little coverage of her life and career, particularly because there does not seem to be significant coverage of that in reliable sources (as it can be seen, the references only briefly pass over what she has actually done in her life and instead concentrate on her political beliefs). As far as I'm aware, an official is not presumed to be notable only based on their political beliefs (most of this article is actually related to that instead of her short career). This then might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, where a politician could become notable in the future for their career accomplishments, and not instead of their political views. To close this off, there is coverage of this person in reliable sources independent of the subject but is this coverage "significant"? We could write a ton more articles like this where there's news coverage of someone's political beliefs, but little to none about what they have accomplished. I should also note that while the creator of this article has expanded several major articles to B-status which is sure appreciated, they were previously banned from creating articles in the mainspace and instead had to use the AfC system. This is one of the articles created since the ban expired in April. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and United States of America. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, yes that is significant coverage. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:44, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
how so? Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:47, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:SIGCOV, I think you've confused significant coverage with coverage of what you think is significant... Your argument doesn't make any sense otherwise. Significant coverage of political beliefs counts just as much towards notability as significant coverage of political accomplishments. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Other than WP:TOOSOON, I would argue independently of that, she is not notable. Most of the sources were published at the same time so there is no demonstration of sustained coverage. The citations from the end of May are redundant. existence ≠ notability. There is a lot of masking a lack of notability. The article lists every job she's ever held. A vague position at Gettr for an unlisted amount of time is not encyclopedic. The sourcing is also misapplied. For example, the statement that she was sworn in on May 27th does not appear in the Forward despite the citation. Again, adding references to mask a lack of notability.--Mpen320 (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Kingsley, and some of her commentary, have received significant coverage from major sources in the short time she had been in the public eye. This coverage is only likely to grow, although I believe she is notable now. As a side note, the article is pretty well-written too. CarlStrokes (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:02, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess no one reviewed the article talk page or you would have seen, and mentioned here, that this article is currently being reviewed for GA status (see Talk:Kingsley Wilson/GA1). This seems relevant to discussing whether or not it should be Kept or Deleted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable and becoming more so by the day. On top pf that, there's the good article review Liz points out. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what? There being a GAN review does not meant that the individual is notable. We have deleted many GAs and FAs in the past, this therefore won't be anything new. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Based on what" you ask???

Wilson has been in the news nonstop lately. I did a quick Google News search and gave up looking at news results by the 20th page. Of course some of those may be passing mentions or low quality but clearly this person is now one of the most prominent people in the States.

Wilson is the Pentagon's spokesperson and the Pentagon is dropping huge bombs. That gets attention. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:00, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it does not mean that every single mention of her name needs to be in the article. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:14, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: as the GA reviewer, I would prefer if you disregard the GAN when evaluating the notability of this subject (if that is within policy). No opinion on deletion. GoldRomean (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:02, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Ms. Wilson holds a position of high importance as a spokesperson for the Pentagon. Her plainly stated views carry weight based upon people's respect for statements made by persons with the authority and responsibility to articulate policies of our government. Moreover, her prior statements may be helpful in evaluating whether a given statement she may make in the future is affected by bias. Mediator MFIII (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2025 (UTC) — Mediator MFIII (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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.