Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. William Hornsby


 * 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 merge to List of mayors of Newport News, Virginia. Missvain (talk) 16:08, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

J. William Hornsby

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Being mayor of a city such as Newport News is not a default sign of notability. One obituary is not enough to justify an article, especially when it is mainly a coatrack about someone else. There is not enough to justify having this article. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  19:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  19:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better than this. Newport News is certainly a large enough city that a well-sourced article about a mayor could be kept, but it's not so large or important that the need to keep articles about its mayors would override the need for the articles to contain any substance. The notability test for mayors is not just the fact that one source can be shown to verify that he existed as a mayor — it is the ability to write and reliably source a substantive article about his political significance, containing information about specific things he did in the mayor's chair, specific effects he had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. If somebody wants to tackle actually improving the article to meet the required standard, I'm not opposed to that — but without any access to archived Virginia media coverage from the 1970s I'm not the guy who can do it, and just having been mayor doesn't entitle him to an instant notability freebie in the absence of anybody actually doing it. Bearcat (talk) 19:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - this person was mayor of a growing city of over 100,000 residents, now almost 180K. There's some potential sources online. Bearian (talk) 22:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, not enough notability for a separate article, someone can start "a list of city mayors" like article...but for a separate article...no. Kolma8 (talk) 12:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge into List of mayors of Newport News, Virginia by expanding the list with another column or even 2 to be able to add the details that are found in the article.--Concertmusic (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge into List of mayors of Newport News, Virginia as suggested by Concertmusic above. If someone would expand while continuing to reference this article by digging behind paywalls that would also be good with me but as is very brief to keep. Notability is not an issue here -- it's all information stewardship. gidonb (talk) 11:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/ talk ¦ contribs \ 11:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Subject was mayor from 1970-1974. Most sources are not going to be found online, but the obituaries that are online strongly suggest that there is plenty of content about the subject and the subject's career. --Enos733 (talk) 01:01, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Just asserting that unspecified sources probably exist doesn't make a person notable in and of itself. We don't have a rule that our sources necessarily have to be online; we do, however, have a rule that regardless of whether the sources are web-published or retrieved from print archives, they do have to be shown. So just asserting that unspecified sources probably exist doesn't get him over the bar — what would change the equation is buckling down and doing the work to find enough sources to get him over the bar. If just saying that sources probably exist somewhere were all it took to save an article, then even outright hoaxes wouldn't be deletable anymore, because then any rando could just walk into any deletion discussion, say that sources probably exist somewhere and drop the mic — so it's showing the actual results of a search for sourcing, not just asserting the probable existence of sources, that turns the tide. Bearcat (talk) 14:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:52, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The standard the community has developed for mayors (of mid sized and larger cities) is a desire to show the subject did more than exist. There should be enough to develop a more complete biography that (ideally) can include some details about the subject's life as well as their accomplishments as mayor. The obituary (certainly one source, but published 34 years after the subject's death, contains many of the elements that we would want in a Wikipedia entry. Searching for "J.W." or "Bill" pulls up numerous newspaper.com images that appear to feature the subject (and I do not have an account, so I can't read the thumbnail). --Enos733 (talk) 21:13, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No, the standard is that we want mayors of small localities to be notable above and beyond the fact they were just mayor of a small locality, not that we can write a full biography of them. SportingFlyer  T · C  18:19, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As Bearcat wrote in Denis Law the question is "how much actual substance they enable us to say about the person beyond just technical verification that he holds the mayoralty," or "the ultimate test is whether the sources support enough substance about the mayor to make the article worth bothering to read." This has become the standard for mayors of mid-sized and larger cities. --Enos733 (talk) 01:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't care about the ability to source biographical detail in the sense of where he went to high school or the name of his wife — it's a question of being able to source substantive content about his mayoralty, such as specific things he did in the mayor's chair and specific effects he had on the development of the city and specific projects he spearheaded. So I'll thank you not to quote me as some sort of contradiction or retort to what SportingFlyer said, because what SportingFlyer said and what I said mean the same thing. Bearcat (talk) 17:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I do think there is a qualitative difference between your comments and SportingFlyer's. I take what you argue for is that we want a substantive article about what the mayor did (or is achieving) while in office. I read SportingFlyer's comment above as more akin to the community's standard about most city council members - that a mayor (of a mid-sized city) should be notable independent of the fact that they serve as mayor (either because of another factor or because of significant coverage in national or international press (or at least more than purely local independent coverage). To me, the two proposed standards lead to two different results especially the types of sourcing that is expected to show notability. (This all said, the question in this AFD is to what degree we expect coverage of the subject in the  Daily Press [and is not online] during the period of the subject's mayoralty is likely to provide substantive content about the things the subject did while as mayor - to reinforce the claims made in the obituary. I think the presumption of coverage should be made, even if we cannot access that at this moment.) --Enos733 (talk) 17:37, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per Bearcat. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge is OK too. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge per Bearcat. SportingFlyer  T · C  18:19, 19 December 2020 (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.