Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gayle Edlund 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. No consensus to delete. However, I concur with Pastor Theo, the article needs sources and needs to be re-written from a neutral point of view (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Gayle Edlund Wilson

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

If spouses of state governors are inherently notable, then this absurdly POV piece needs drastic reworking. If not (and I would contend they are not), then deletion is the solution. Sure, she's done all the things expected of a political wife - served on the foundations, established the chapters of other foundations, advocated for the noble causes - but once we cut through the puffery, there really isn't much left. So delete, per WP:BIO. Biruitorul Talk 07:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC) 
 * Keep The First Lady of California is notable.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? Purely for that reason? I'm a bit sceptical of the claim. Sure, we have 102 other US gubernatorial spouse biographies (which means many, many more are missing, and I'd wager rightly so), but some (by no means all, but some) of those have actually done something meaningful besides being married to a governor. Aside from the obvious ones (Laura Bush, Hillary Clinton, Eleanor Roosevelt), there's Bill Shaheen (political operative), Nellie Connally (present at JFK's assassination), Lenore Romney (Senate candidate, activist) and Phyllis George (Miss America). Mrs. Wilson hardly rises to that level. - Biruitorul Talk 19:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Forbes Magazine profiled her because of her association with Gilead Sciences. I think her work with many important American companies makes her notable even if she had not been the First Lady of California.Broadweighbabe (talk) 04:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, so she serves on Gilead's board. Surely we could add a line on that, citing Forbes, in Pete Wilson's biography? It still doesn't seem to justify a separate article. - Biruitorul Talk 00:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly meets the criteria at WP:Notability. A quick google news search shows she has a fair amount of media coverage . She's also been profiled by multiple buisness magazines, journals, and websites. Here is just a few examples of many: businessweek, allbusiness.com, tradevibes.com, etc.Nrswanson (talk) 20:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge With the article on her husband, former Gov. Wilson. The Forbes coverage is not a profile, but a C.V. that it runs with anyone who is a director of a company. The article does not pass WP:RS (the references link to a non-profit web site). The article could also use some significant rewriting -- it is a little too gushy for an encyclopedia. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 00:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep the governors of some of the major states with  extensive press coverage may be like Presidents in the respect of the attention awarded their family. Any, she in particular  does in fact have such coverage. Nobody but the nominator said delete, so I am not sure why a relist was thought necessary. DGG (talk) 01:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep based on the number of reliable and verifiable sources found in a Google / News / Archive search about the subject, establishing independent notability. Alansohn (talk) 03:11, 20 March 2009 (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.