Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pete Williams (journalist)


 * 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. Needs more work with references and expansion, but clearly meets WP:N at this time, clear consensus to keep ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 19:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Pete Williams (journalist)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

In effect, an unsourced BLP, as with the 60,000 other BLPs to be nominated for deletion. The only reference is an unreliable source about his "outing" and the only external link is his bio on NBC news. He has never received any awards as a journalist, and he fails WP:POLITICIAN as a sub-cabinet official. The deletionists here must admit that we have a lot of work to do, or delete this one, too, and many more unsourced BLPs. The homophobes will love deleting this one. Bearian (talk) 06:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. A quick Google search reveals that Williams is, indeed, NBC's "Chief Justice Correspondent" and he is frequently called upon to provide expertise on national TV. (The external link to his NBC bio appears to have been used as a source for a lot of the article, for that matter.) Add a few more easily-found sources, subtract the cruel gossip, and we're good. Besides, I don't want anybody thinking I'm a homophobe. Şłџğģő  06:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Changing to Strong Keep. Nom clearly is acting in bad faith; Williams's notability is not in question, but let's vanish his article because nom doesn't feel like finding sources. Yawn.  Şłџğģő  07:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I challenge you to find reliable sources and add them to the stub. I am sick and tired of being the only Wikipedian trying to rescue articles.  He's not inherently notable. Bearian (talk) 06:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Delete unless it is fixed. Bearian (talk) 06:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. One reliable source was the NBC bio you mentioned, then I mentioned. Give it a read. It's actually extensive enough to serve as this article's far-and-away primary source. (It establishes Williams's position as a senior, top fifteen or so content guy at NBC News. What's inherent notability if that's not it?) Per the aforementioned Google search, there are a bunch more reliable sources. I'll try to improve the article and see if I can get it past the problems you correctly noted.
 * I'm not as offended by your tone as I could be, per my commitment to ensure I always DGAF. Given your note on my talk page specifically requesting my input, I just wonder a bit about confrontational attitudes. Şłџğģő  07:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose it may seem like an uphill battle sometimes, but you're really, truly not "the only Wikipedian trying to rescue articles". Bearcat (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Not based on his personal life, but on his longevity and stature at NBC News. He was a constant presence during the aftermath of Bush v. Gore and on any case the network covers from the AG's office, a pretty high position on the correspondent's table, beneath White House and Pentagon correspondent but not by much.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 11:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Williams was very much in the public eye as the DoD spokesperson during the Gulf War, and has had a steady national career as a broadcaster since then. Even if you just confine yourself to the NY Times archive, there are plenty of sources for an article , including his outing.  Whatever the WP:POINT is behind this nomination, this is the wrong place to make it.  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The only point is that I don't care one way or the other any more, but many editors are intent in deleting rapidly all unsourced BLPs. Fix it yourself; I am tired of doing all the heavy lifting in mainspace. Bearian (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm already over-extended on other articles that I've invested effort in. I'll strive to rescue any of them at risk of the purge, but not any others.  As I see it, that's all that anyone can be expected to do.  If the powers-that-be decide to delete to unilaterally this article, let 'em.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm conflicted... On face value he seems to easily meet notability (being a veteran journalist for a national network and all) but in this case standard tests I usually perform for BLP are more or less useless.  On first glance of any search engine test it looks like he's very much notable but when you look at the hits for the vast majority of them aren't about Mr. Williams but only mention his name in the byline or as the reporting journalist which in my opinion makes those links not applicable to notability (per the example of a company spokesman who's name appears on all of the companies press releases not being notable just because he gets a lot of hits on google).  On the other hand I'd assume that there HAS to be something out there that meets WP:RS that actually gives relevent information on Mr. Williams himself that could be added to the BLP.  I say give the rescue team a week or so to try and dig something up (I will try as well) and if after due diligence we can't find anything more than his NBC bio that meets WP:RS we merge to NBC News  Nefariousski (talk) 17:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears that a significant number of users here feel that all unsourced BLPs must be deleted on sight, or given two days at most. Why is this one any different? Bearian (talk) 18:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There isn't yet consensus on deleting solely for being unreferenced. Until policy officially changes, being unreferenced is not a valid reason for deletion. If the subject is not notable, then so be it; the unreferenced bit is irrelevant. -M.Nelson (talk) 18:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I gotta go with Keep. He is a major part of NBC Nightly News, I see him almost every night when there is a US Justice Department story. Being on a national news program often provides notability. C T J F 8 3  chat 18:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Further Comment He passes WP:Politician Based off of point 1 considering that the criteria for notability is simply Holding national office (Assistant SecDef qualifies). He passes The WP:N criteria for "Any Biography" off of point number 1 for receiving the "First Ammendment Award" as well.  I don't think the issue of notability is in question here but one of whether a poorly written / sourced BLP should be deleted because we hold BLPs to a much higher standard.  I tend to agree that if a BLP can't be written well it shouldn't be written at all but am still on the fence regarding whether this particular article can be improved enough to meet BLP standards.  Nefariousski (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:N per his extensive TV presence, while that may be hard to document it still allows him to pass... --  RP459  Talk/Contributions 18:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Keep  whether notability would extend to Assistant Secretaries of a Dept. would seem not automatic, but to depend on their function and the extent to which it is public knowledge. I think he probably qualifies. The outing reference needs to be much better supported; not just by the NYT column linked to above   DGG ( talk ) 19:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC) (convinced by arguments below that it should be automatic)   DGG ( talk ) 18:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:N is pretty clear about politicians who hold national office. In fact it even states that "Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion".  Surely the Asst SecDef can be considered to be monumentally more notable than your average suburban mayor.  Nefariousski (talk) 19:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep When a subject has Google Scholar hits about his outing 1 2, I cannot see how it is a bad thing that we mention it. And the subject has at least 233 Google Scholar hits. For example, here in the American Journalism Review, Vol. 15, September 1993, it says, "...are the inevitable comparisons with Pete Williams, the former Wyoming radio and television reporter who was Defense Secretary Dick Cheney's chief spokesman. Despite the fact that he was an architect of the controversial Desert Storm press controls, Williams is remembered as a nice guy who understood journalists' gluttonous appetites no matter which news organization they worked for." This constitutes analysis of the subject, and the use of the word "inevitable" means that means that the writer considers him to be unforgettable, and then says that he did more than read prepared statements; he was "an architect" of something controversial. Abductive  (reasoning) 22:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep for now and give it a chance, without prejudice against revisiting this in X amount of time if references really don't pan out. If being an unreferenced BLP becomes an immediate deletion criterion at some point in the future, then we can start acting in accordance with it at that time, but until then we really, truly can't act as though it's already policy. And I'd note that I will viscerally oppose any "delete unreferenced BLPs on sight" policy that doesn't include a "the deleter must make a good-faith attempt to determine whether the article is referenceable/salvageable first" clause. Bearcat (talk) 23:05, 29 January 2010 (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.