Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Editorial Board at The Wall Street Journal


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 16:23, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Editorial Board at The Wall Street Journal
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

The article is simply a copy of the Wall Street Journal article, and it is unnecessary for the same reason no other newspaper's editorial board has its own article; not significantly separated from the newspaper article itself. There is not a need for a separate article, because it is simply one part of the WSJ as a whole. Bill Williams 13:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If you honestly think "The article is simply a copy of the Wall Street Journal article" then I suggest you take another look... Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 14:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep nominator's rationale doesn't appear accurate, the editorial board of the WSJ is quite notable in its own right. Andre🚐 14:43, 31 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep The article is definitely not simply a copy as the nominator suggests. It appears to definitely be worthy of its own article, and the Wall Street Journal article already refers to this article for more details on the editorial board. So keeping this appears to be the right course of action CrazyPredictor (talk) 22:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete Merge and delete - I agree with the nominator; there's some good information here, but it could easily be added (or, in some cases, re-added) to the main The Wall Street Journal page. The Wall Street Journal article doesn't need splitting up - it's 112 KB right now, which is admittedly long, but still only about half the length of The New York Times article. Adding another few paragraphs for this additional content won't break anything. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 14:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * this isn't a discussion about whether or not WSJ should be split, it already has been. You need to make an argument about why this page doesn't meet GNG etc, its fundamentally a different discussion once the bold edit has been made to create the page. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 14:55, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make sense - either this should be one or two articles, and the merits of the argument don't change depending on whether it's currently one or two articles. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * They actually are different standards, which is presumably why you're arguing "Delete" rather than "Merge" Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:48, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, it's true that what I'm arguing for is really a merge. (Or re-merge.) But I don't think there's any point in keeping this page in place once the merge is done. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 16:04, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thats a regular merge, not a deletion. Presumably you would want Editorial Board at The Wall Street Journal to redirect to Wall Street Journal? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I think it should be deleted - that's what I meant with my previous comment. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 16:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, so you want a merge rather than a merge and redirect. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, fine - I changed my recommendation to "Merge and delete". Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2022 (UTC)


 * The article is nearly identical to the Editorial Board section of the Wall Street Journal article, and arguing otherwise ignores the fact that it was created by copying and pasting that section into this article. Every other editorial board that is as notable as the WSJ does not have their own articles. The WSJ editorial board is not somehow more notable than every other one, and it does not need its own article because it is not notable independently from the WSJ itself. This article receives almost no views in comparison to the main article, and is not needed in its own right. Bill Williams 17:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You appear to be mistaken, it was partially created by copying and pasting but that is not the extent of the issue... Only half of the info in this article can be found at the WSJ main page, if you really think they're nearly identical I advise you take another look. The WSJ editorial board does appear to get more coverage than any other one, that makes it more notable. We base notability on coverage, not our own opinions on whether a topic is notable or not. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep Rationale appears to be in error; including material copied from a related article is not reason for deletion; WSJ editorial board has actual significant coverage vs. many other editorial boards (e.g. LAT, Chicago Tribune, WaPo). The fact that those aren't notable doesn't impact this article. Protonk (talk) 18:51, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: meets GNG (see ). Nom's argument amounts to WP:OSE (or more accurately, other stuff does not exist), which is not a reason for deletion. Sure, this article duplicates much from The Wall Street Journal, but it does not have to. HouseBlastertalk 23:41, 5 September 2022 (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.