Talk:Josh Romney

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 27 February 2008. The result of the discussion was Wrong venue.

This is just a start...I invite those who have more information on Josh Romney or the 2nd Congressional District to expand.

[edit] Keep Josh Romney, He's a Notable Figure

Josh Romney is now a notable figure, getting significant press coverage because of his possible run. Doesn't this qualify him for his own page? I think it does. He's been in the news, and I beleive Wikipedia should be up to date. People will look down on this great site if they feel Wikipedia doesn't have the newest information or the newest significant person. Oh, and who deleted the picture of Josh Romney and his Dad, and why? And who deleted my article about Josh's possible congress run on Mitt Romney's wikipedia page. Please explain why you are deleting my hard work, whomever you are. This makes me very discouraged, and I feel my work is going down the drain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooman456 (talk • contribs) 05:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Proposal

While I recognize that this page has only recently been started, I do not feel at this time that Josh Romney is notable in his own right quite yet. He thus far has no non-political notariety other than his relation to his father (notability is not inheritable) and WP:BIO is pretty specific in the standards set forth for politicians. He has not held elective office and thus far his experience has consisted of work on his father's campaign(s?). I would propose this article for deletion, but I am of the opinion that if he does run he has a reasonable chance of winning. Unfortunately WP:CRYSTAL does not make allowences for what is in essence guess work. Mstuczynski (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Do not merge - if indeed he runs for Congress, we will likely know soon. Since he is a known figure now and he is potentially running for a high office, I think we should keep the article for the time being. If, in a few months, nothing materializes, then perhaps it should be merged or deleted. Jrclark (talk) 19:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought I addressed your concerns in my proposal. However, if I may quote WP:BIO:

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject

• If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability
• Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.

Your single reference leads to an article stating the Mr. Romney, as a son of a famous politician, is considering running for office. This is addressed here:

• Politicians who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature. This is a secondary criterion. People who satisfy this criterion will almost always satisfy the primary criterion. Biographers and historians will usually have already written about the past and present holders of major political offices. However, this criterion ensures that our coverage of major political offices, incorporating all of the present and past holders of that office, will be complete regardless.
• Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city.
• Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such a person may be notable for other reasons besides their political careers alone.

As I stated above, he simply does not qualify under these criteria. My only other option, if I am unable to form a concensus for a merge, is to recommend this article for deletion according to the standards quoted above. If and when he meets the criteria a recreation of this page would be warrented. If you have access to any other reference that establish his notability in line with the WP:BIO standards, I would encourage you to add them to the article. Mstuczynski (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I reviewed the politician guidelines earlier...he received significant press coverage when he was campaigning on behalf of his father on multiple national stations. In addition, this most recent story was carried on the Drudge Report, which is one of the most popular news web sites in the world. This is a very recent development, so I think in the least we can let it play out a bit before we rush to remove it. Jrclark (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a political family thing. ("Membership has its privileges.") Mormons---for whom Mitt's play on the national stage was Camelot---will cyber-research up 'n' ballyhoo Josh right into Winkipedia's database kwickerin you can shake a lamb's tail. (Think: minor players in the Kennedy clan.) Thus, G. Scott Romney merits his page...and now, with Josh's current Congressional-run flirtation (as augmented by the Five Brothers' jegubazillion Google hits during The Campaign), so does he! --Justmeherenow (talk) 03:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure how this is productive to the conversation. Catagorising Mormons as pre-disposed to support other Mormons is dangerously close to WP:ATTACK. Mstuczynski (talk) 05:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if my informal style of expression in my last comment translated within print as sarcasm; I didn't mean for it to. Meanwhile, the political aspect of my comment was simply this: Josh, should he run, would do so in Utah, where he could conceivably benefit from the percentage of votes among coreligionists that had been garnered by his father this year (2008). But, finally, to reiterate the actual point at hand, I sincerely do think "celebrated" families' member ought to go ahead and recieve some encyclopedic treatment. (<Shrugs.> Which they naturally garner, due their having become of public interest. :^) ) --Justmeherenow (talk) 07:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. An interesting proposal. I am not sure where it would fit under the guidelines, but perhaps a page such as "Romney (Politcal Family)" with links to notable members? Mstuczynski (talk) 14:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That is an interesting proposal. Here's an example of the Kennedy family. While I have never been to Utah, I have lived in Michigan, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire - the Romney family is very well known in all three of those states (and quite obviously in Utah). Jrclark (talk) 15:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting enough to already exist. Please see Pratt-Romney family. Mstuczynski (talk) 16:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Was just getting ready to post the same thing - I may propose making that more of an article like the Kennedy family rather than just a family tree and a few details, but that's a better discussion for that article. It seems that programatically Josh Romney has already been added and linked to that article. Jrclark (talk) 16:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I like the family page idea and agree with you that it needs to become more of a political family article rather than a pedigree chart. However, I still don't think Josh merits his own article. All of his publicity is just a consequence of his dad's campaign—nothing of his own merit. But Mitt and his father (and other progenitors, it seems) were major political figures. Just adding my two cents. --Eustress (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)