Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter Lee Williams


 * 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. The "delete" opinions were mainly based on the undue prominence given to the criminal case, and since the rewrite or expansion no new "delete" opinion has been submitted. Nobody apart from the nom seems to question his notability as an academic.  Sandstein  09:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Walter Lee Williams

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP1E of a person who has been charged with but not yet convicted of a crime, which skews decidedly in the direction of being a wanted poster rather than an encyclopedia article. Due to some page-blanking issues I listed the article for BLP review at WP:BLP/N, where the reviewer's assessment was that it wasn't consistent with BLP policy because the notability is hinged entirely on the criminal allegation. Claims of preexisting prominence as a queer studies academic aren't properly supported by any sources which are covering him in that context, but are referenced entirely to assertions of his academic prominence in coverage of the criminal allegation. Per WP:PERP, we have a duty to be extremely careful, to the point of "not at all" in the vast majority of cases, about BLPs where an as yet untried and unconvicted criminal allegation is the primary notability hook. I get that his having been listed as one of the FBI's ten most wanted fugitives in 2013 might, in theory, be the top notability claim for some people — but (a) he was captured the very next day and is still in detention, so there's no real argument for keeping this article on "public service" grounds now, and (b) while we do have articles about some other criminals who have been added to that list, we're far from having articles about all (or even most) of them. So for all of those reasons, this should be deleted — no prejudice against potential recreation if and when he's ever actually convicted of something. Bearcat (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep and rewrite. Mr. Williams is blessed (or cursed) with a common name, which unfortunately means that Googling for "Walter Williams" will bring up two dozen unrelated people in addition to him; and his works are rarely credited to "Walter Lee Williams", they are usually "Walter Williams" or, at best, "Walter L. Williams". But this particular Walter Williams happens to have been a renowned anthropologist and historian before his arrest, even though our current article only brushes on this. I looked around, and his works are used as the references for oodles of Wikipedia articles, on Homosexuality and Native American history. I'm going through and linking them in now, and might come back and give a list here, it's impressive. The article needs to be rewritten to focus on his work, rather than his arrest, and, as the nominator mentions, should not give undue weight to the arrest until any conviction, but we need an article on this person, and it's, unfortunately, a sign of our Systemic bias that we didn't have one until he got arrested. --GRuban (talk) 15:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Here are the ones that I could find in a few minutes. There might be others.
 * Five Civilized Tribes
 * Third gender
 * Stonewall Book Award - this particular one bears attention; about 90% of the winners of this award, as he is, have articles
 * Gender dysphoria in children
 * History of Oklahoma
 * Women in warfare (1500-1699)
 * Osh-Tisch
 * God as the devil
 * LGBT and religion topics
 * Two-Spirit
 * LGBT in Mexico
 * Crow Nation
 * LGBT history
 * W. Dorr Legg
 * Non-penetrative sex
 * Toby Johnson
 * Richard Cornish (shipmaster)
 * Stonewall riots
 * Barbara Gittings
 * Yolanda Retter
 * --GRuban (talk) 15:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, and for what it's worth, he has been convicted and sentenced. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-usc-professor-child-sex-crimes-20141215-story.html --GRuban (talk) 16:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * And if anyone wonders what his article should look like without the focus on the arrest - look at his article on the Russian Wikipedia. Yes, he has an article on the Russian Wikipedia. Yes, it's long. Yes, it focuses on his work (though, of course, has a noticeable section on the arrest). For those who can't read Russian, it's not the best written, as every sentence is in the style "in 19XX, he did Y." but it should clearly show that he is notable even outside being the 500th person on the FBI's Most Wanted list. --GRuban (talk) 16:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, the thing to remember is that deletion does not constitute a permanent ban on the subject ever having an article — it constitutes a judgement on the existing version of the article, and a new article about a previously deleted topic can be created again if the notability claim and/or the sourcing can be made better than they were the first time. In fact, we have a principle that sometimes an article can be so bad that it becomes necessary to blow it up and start over, even if we can find evidence that the topic is eligible for a better article than the existing one — and this absolutely qualifies for that treatment, because it's placing the WP:WEIGHT of substance and sourcing on the wrong part of his biography. We're far better off putting this out of its misery, and then recreating a new and better article from scratch if desired, than we are just trying to revise this version. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No, that's an essay. The principle is "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page". --GRuban (talk) 19:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete The article as it stands should be deleted - basically so that the "history" and pushing of the "he is a felon" weight could be properly established in an article de novo (and such an article which establishes his notability might well be proper - deletion here is not an argument against a future article). Right now, the BLP fails to establish actual notability, and I am unsure that being a co-author on material cited in some Wikipedia articles actually establishes notability either.  Nor does having an article in the Russian Wikipedia establish notability under the guidelines here.  Collect (talk) 17:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * We don't delete previous versions because they're unbalanced, we only delete them if they're outright BLP violations, and rather severe ones at that, which, I don't think this is, given that it's sourced. The Russian Wikipedia page is not bad at establishing notability, given that it shows what can be written about him, and is sourced, and the Stonewall Book Award is a notable award. Basically he meets two or even three points of WP:AUTHOR namely "1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." - I have demonstrated that we widely cite him on Wikipedia, but that was just because it was easy, of course that is not quite enough, but he is also similarly widely cited by other Native American and Queer historians, which I will, if necessary demonstrate in a few days; and "4. The person's work ... has won significant critical attention," namely the Stonewall Book Award. (Also quite likely "2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.", as it seems he is with his Spirit and the Flesh, which seems for some time to have been the definitive work about Two-Spirit, even if it is now criticized.) Ah, and - why am I not editing, balancing, establishing notability, and otherwise improving the page right now, then? Well, mainly because it's fully protected. So I have to do it here. --GRuban (talk) 19:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Ooh, neat, Bearcat unprotected. Thanks! Will be gradually improving it over the next few days. Hopefully before it's deleted! --GRuban (talk) 19:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep now that the article, especially the Career section, has been expanded to show notability (e.g. winner of what is now called the Stonewall Book Award). The crime section is a mess and should be shortened to avoid putting undue weight on it. I might just go do that right now. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , would you consider withdrawing your AfD, since it is no longer a BLP1E and because he actually was convicted and sentenced, per sources? – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have cleaned up the section on his arrest and conviction. With a suitable expansion of the Career section, this could be a decent article about a person notable for a number of things. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13(talk) 00:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment This article has been significantly expanded since this AfD was created. The AfD description was never accurate and, at this point, makes no sense to someone who might come to this page from the article. This AfD should have been closed as "keep", not relisted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - in its current incarnation, there doesn't seem to be an issue with it. Well-sourced, meets WP:GNG, and the conviction/arrest is not given undue weight (although the other sections could be expanded).  Onel 5969  TT me 12:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - sources demonstrate that the subject meets WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:05, 16 March 2016 (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.