Talk:Josetta Wilkins

She seems interesting
, if you believe that an article is worthwhile if all it says is that somebody is an educator (in an unspecified subject), a counselor (about an unspecified area of issues), or a four-term representative in a state legislature (with no information whatever about what she proposed, backed, opposed, etc), then you are free to accept this as an article -- as is (almost) any other editor. Incidentally, I note that it says at the foot: "This draft is in progress as of May 12, 2023." Only minor changes have been made since then, but one was the addition of "In 2022 a Health Unit was named for her." This comes with a reference to https://www.fox16.com/news/local-news/new-jefferson-co-health-unit-named-after-trailblazing-former-legislator/. So according to Fox, she blazed some trail. What was it? According to that news story, "Dr. Wilkins sponsored legislation that created the Arkansas Breast Cancer Act of 1997, known as Breast Care, which is utilized in health units around the state". OK, now we have something worth writing up.

Fox is kind-of-OK for matters neither political nor scientific; this is a bit of both, but I suppose Fox will do.

Luckily, we don't have to limit ourselves to Fox. We have newspaper archives, etc. With a little searching, one finds that matters weren't so simple. As just one example:

"House Bill 1924 -- the Breast Cancer Act -- sponsored by Rep. Josetta Wilkins, D-Pine Bluff, failed because of the strong tobacco lobby, according to Flanagin. The bill would have placed a tax of $1 per 1,000 cigarettes sold in the state. Revenue would have been used for research and prevention of breast cancer."

("Flanagin" = "Pat Flanagin, D-Forrest City, chairman of the House Public Health, Welfare and Labor Committee". Source: Jeff Williams, "General Assembly's work deeper than patient protection", Arkansas Business Little Rock volume 12, issue 17, April 24, 1995, page 8.)

So she was defeated at least once by the tobacco pushers, but undeterred and eventually successful. Let's read more about her! -- Hoary (talk) 02:07, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, but so what? The inquiry here is not whether this article is complete, but whether it meets the criteria for promotion to mainspace, where it can presumably be worked on further. BD2412  T 02:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)


 * , WP:POLITICIAN says:


 * The following are presumed to be notable: / Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels.


 * However, it notes:


 * 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.


 * The primary criterion is of course WP:BASIC. In its current state, the draft stub fails to demonstrate that she satisfies this. The failure mystifies me, as it's hard to believe that she doesn't satisfy this, and even a very few minutes of searching suggests that yes the evidence is there on the web.


 * So, "[does it meet] the criteria for promotion to mainspace, where it can presumably be worked on further"? It seems to meet one criterion (WP:POLITICIAN), and I've no reason to think that it fails any other.


 * "Where it can presumably be worked on further": Yes, it presumably can be. Do I presume that it will be worked on further? No I don't. Wikipedia is already stuffed with such feeble confections as Irma Hunter Brown and Mary Broadaway (created 2021 and 2013 respectively). I say they're worthless. That's just my opinion (apropos of which ...). Your opinion may of course differ; you are free to accept this submission. -- Hoary (talk) 04:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC)