Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert B. Hawkins Jr.

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 delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert B. Hawkins Jr.

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

dePRODded by Necrothesp under the possibility that role as Chair of U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations might make for notability. I'm not sure, so bringing it here for discussion. This is the best source I'm able to find that isn't his writings as chair, and I'm just not sure it's enough. Thoughts? Part of the issue is when the Commission was disbanded, not a lot online that might have covered why he was selected, which could also speak to notability. Star Mississippi 17:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 17:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 17:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 17:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Chair of the U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations might certainly make a valid notability claim if he could be shown to pass WP:GNG on reliable source coverage about his work in the role, but it isn't "inherently" notable enough to guarantee him an article regardless of sourceability problems. Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can find enough quality sources to do better than this, but the existing article in its existing state isn't enough. Bearcat (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per criteria 3 of WP:NACADEMIC for being the director of the American Public Policy Program at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. I would think a position like this at the Smithsonian Institute would meet that criteria.4meter4 (talk) 20:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Question it seems to be a think tank, not an academic institution so I'm not sure academic criteria would apply. This did back up his role, the only non wiki mirror that I could find. Star Mississippi 21:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a think tank but part of the United States federal government which does academic research. The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars was established by an act of Congress in 1968; it's paid for through federal tax money and is part of the Smithsonian Institution (a federal government institution widely respected as a major academic institution internationally).4meter4 (talk) 21:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm familiar with the Smithsonian. Our own article on the WW Center needs work then because it says it's a public private partnership which also functions as a think tank. This underscores why it needed to be brought here for discussion v. PROD though so thanks for raising these. Star Mississippi 21:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... it looks like there are some indications it may work that way after looking more closely at the wiki article. I honestly am not sure how to evaluate his post. Let’s see what others have to say.4meter4 (talk) 22:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. That article needs massive work. I did what I could and added a few tags, which hopefully will catch the eye of some editors more experienced in NGOs and the like to see if your academic theory is correct. Star Mississippi 01:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 14:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient coverage in indeptendent reliable sources. The position held does not confer notability; even if it did, that would be a rebuttable and now rebutted presumption. Sandstein 16:30, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One the one hand, the lack of ready references to demonstrate notability has been stated by other editors above and I agree with that assessment. On the other hand, the most active part of this person's career seems to have been the 80's and possibly into the early 90's, which is pre-Web. On the gripping hand, even available archives don't seem to have anything and it has essentially lingered without improvement for nearly twenty years. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:26, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.