Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wesley Gray


 * 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. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 20:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Wesley Gray

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not yet notable Assist Professor. One academic book (co-authored),with only 131 library copies according to worldcat --important books in this subject get many more. The book from his experiences inIraq shows 210 copies,also low for that subject.  DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Abstain I was the page creator. This is a rare WP:COI page for me (I think my only one). I was not paid, but I did this page as a favor to a friend. I had some trouble finding the types of sources I would have liked as it pertains to WP:ACADEMICS. I will abstain from this discussion due to the COI element.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I was just informed of the following sources, which may help establish notability:
 * http://corporate1.morningstar.com/Chicago-ETF-Speakers/
 * http://www.aaii.com/authors/wesley-gray?adv=yes
 * http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/3471531178001/taking-advantage-of-taxes-through-alternative-investments/#sp=show-clips
 * Does this help?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Another link.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep; based on evidence above. 128.125.52.41 (talk) 14:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The book he is famous for is Embedded, which has multiple reviews including internationally (I added a couple of sources). He is the only author of that book. I think the co-authored book referred to in the nominations is this one. He is interviewed nationally for his economic opinions (something most full professors don't experience), e.g. this and this. So, he satisfies WP:NACADEMICS #7 and, more generally, WP:GNG. I am One of Many (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 10:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)




 * Keep - I'm still not convinced he passes WP:ACADEMIC but I think the sources provided above allow him to pass WP:GNG. TTT, it would be good if you could commit to some copy-editing. Certainly not an obligation by any means, would just be good to get some clarity around some of the claims and sources.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 11:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * , What are the issues that you think need cleaning up?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Just minor stuff - it was easier just to make a few changes myself. I don't think we should be (or need to be) naming his wife and daughter, for example and I moved his Reserve stuff to the end of his military service. Would perhaps be good to have a bit more about his military service - the work on which his book is based.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 21:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Unless a BLP has requested privacy, family details are encyclopedic content. I don't know why Mr. Gray would be regarded any differently than any other BLP in which we know the name of his close relatives. I don't recall situations in which that additional biographical content was not considered ameliorative.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I've seen such details removed from the BLPs of politicians and sports-people - I would have thought a former solider wouldn't require such details to be published for his biography to have encyclopaedic value. But I certainly wouldn't object to them going back in - I really don't care either way.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 23:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Generally sportspeople should have their wives and childrens names if we know them. If we can source them we should not include them. E.g., I made this edit at Chris Young (pitcher) which resulted in his sourceable wife's name remaining in the article and unsourceable son's name being excluded. If we had a source for his son's name, I would have added it though. Please name sportspeople where it has been determined that the article is improved by removing spousal and child names.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No, not suggesting it's an improvement - just thought it was the "done thing". I haven't queried/reverted when others have done so. But happy to have it queried and happy to be reverted myself if my understanding is incorrect.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 01:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I have restored the familial detail to the article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The personal detail looks good and is what one expect to in a notable BLP. I am One of Many (talk) 05:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 *  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 06:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't congratulate me too much. His family has grown without appropriate sourcing.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:20, 10 September 2014 (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.