Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter "Walt" Dawson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. -Docg 10:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Walter "Walt" Dawson

Walter "Walt" Dawson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Sounds like a nice guy, but he hasn't quite reached the level of notability yet. A Google search yields very little on the man. Katr67 21:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak delete The references would normally be enough to satisfy me, but I can't tolerate the conflict of interest. The main article writer was User:Dawsonspa, and I'm guessing that Dawson is the guy's name, and spa is single-purpose account. It's abundantly clear that some of the information in the article, such as the sentence "Dawson is writing a book about his life experiences", could only be written by Dawson himself or someone who knows him, and cannot be traced to a reliable source. Not being able to separate the wheat from the chaff, my instinct is to discard the whole article. YechielMan 02:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I doubt a new user would know about single purpose accounts. I think that the username can be read as "Dawson's Pa" in memory of his father. Katr67 05:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Reading the article, it is clear that he has become notable for sentimental reasons. But multiple newspapers and other media found this notable. That's really quite enough. WP N reflects the real world, sentimentality and all. DGG 06:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I disagree with the comment regarding the limited amount of information a google search yields. When a specific search is made for “Walt Dawson” and either “Oregon,” or “Alzheimer’s” one finds a rather large number of hits that range from magazine articles to US Congressional records. Therefore I feel the article should stay up. But I agree with the lack of citation for the book. So perhaps the article could be further edited. Desdemona23 12:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment This is the above editor's first edit. Katr67 23:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - --Remi 01:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Your "keep" will carry more weight if you can tell us why you think the article should be kept. Katr67 20:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Enough reputable sources exist to make it legitimate. Besides, as DGG pointed out, the national media found it notable. Their interest is good enough for me. Agree with previous posts about the lack of citation for "the book,” which is out of place. Editing must take place; but the article should stay. Rtyhgf 01:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The Walt Dawson article is the only article Rtyhgf has edited. Katr67 14:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Fair enough. But that does not detract from my point: that additional edits would remove the conflict of interest from the article. Rtyhgf 04:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I wrote this page, and obviously I think it should stay. Whatever the decision, I am glad to see that most of the discussion has been polite. This is my first article on wikipedia, and I wrote it because this young man's efforts for Alzheimers advocacy came to my attention when I became personally interested in the disease last year. I have met, and do know Mr Dawson slightly. I understand he is writing a book and intends to seek elected office 2010. As his father is the inspiration for his life, and I am a single topic editor, I created the login 'Dawson's Pa;'. However, I'm sorry I did this now. I am prepared to alter this article, which is sourced, to meet the demands of the encyclopedia. This is not because I want to promote Mr Dawson, but because Alzheimer's is very much a reality for some of us out here, and people like Mr Dawson are doing something real about it. That is not a sentimental point, but a very real one, and evidential to boot.Dawsonspa 08:13 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    Comment I'm curious to know what parts of the debate you feel haven't been polite. It's standard procedure to point out when new users contribute to Afd debates, if that is what you are concerned about. You can read about why this is an concern here and here. Katr67 20:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • keep I think both comments about the sufficient number of sources and about the need for additional edits are valid points. I have been lurking on this site for a while now, and many a times have I seen pages with more than doubtful contents. Following my lazy nature, I waited for people to edit them, and it happened, which proves me that the only way for wikipedia to be accurate is to wait long enough for pages to be edited (and for some, it takes a loooong time). If I read this page's history correctly, it was created on February 1st. If we take into consideration the fact that few pages are that interesting or made relevent by people creating/editing until after a few more months, why delete it now? Plus, if you check the links, you can discover a few things I ignored about Alzheimer and its reception in the US. I say wait and see. Ducklingsrule 20:36 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd like to see more debate from experienced editors and not just newly minted users and people who have only edited this article. Now. The question here is not whether Alzheimer's awareness is a valid cause, because indeed it is, but whether this particular individual is notable. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and is not here to facilitate the promotion of any cause, no matter how noble it may be. When I nominated this article, I had concerns about it being vanity/self-promotion, which seems not to be the case. However, Mr. Dawson seems most notable for his activities (and the media interest them) when he was a child. I'd like to see more sources added for any notable activities he has participated in since that time. Katr67 20:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I believe that Mr Dawson has certainly satisfied the general notability guideline of multiple sources in credible news media, and I don't understand the point that he was possibly of note as a child, but not now. If we were to apply that measure to all encyclopedic entries (as a bar) then many figures would have to be removed. Current notability is no measure of past impact. In any case, more recent sources have been added. I hope the conflict of interests point has also been addressed. The rough consensus therefore seems to be to keep the page. Dawsonspa 09.20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment (Are you signing your posts with 4 tildes?~~~~? People on here seem to be having trouble with their sigs, but that's all you need to do--type 4 tildes.) I did not say that his possible notability only as a child is a criterion for deletion. Like I said above, I was just asking for more sources for recent activity, which may not be notable and some of which looks like original research. I'm not going to continue to debate his notability, that's for the adminstrator who closes this debate to decide. However, despite the list of references that is longer than the article itself, several things in the article are still not cited. I'll tag them so you can see what I mean. I'm not doing this to hassle you, just making sure the article isn't filled with original research. If you'd like this article to look really good, read up on how to format citations. Thanks. Katr67 15:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Fair enough. I'll seek out some more citations.Of course, that is why the list is longer than the article itself!V.Dovnan 07:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
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.