Talk:Ellwood Walter (businessman)

This article was nominated for deletion on 12 July 2020. The result of the discussion was keep.

The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Greghenderson2006 (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.

Request Edit

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Can we remove the WP:COI tag? It looks like a cleanup has been done to comply with Wikipedia's content policies WP:WTRMT. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done Netherzone said it was ok with him. Darth Flappy ^«Talk» 17:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Character, wealth and reputation

Everything related to his character, wealth and reputation was deleted as "undo" (WEIGHT). Since this accounts for a mere short two sentences, there is no weight problem compared to the rest of the article. And just because he had a good reputation doesn't mean we have to also include negative material to balance it out, I am not aware of any negative material in any case. If the man had a high reputation in his community we should say so, this is an integral part of any biography, the article would be biased by deleting it. -- GreenC 15:35, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Should be part of the biography Lightburst (talk) 16:09, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of items in Infobox

Hi Tony, thanks for your recent edits on the Ellwood Walter (businessman) article. I was wondering why you removed the spouse and children parameters in the Infobox. Per template:Personbox, these parameters can be used. --Greg Henderson (talk) 15:27, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greg, the information confronts the reader in the very first section (just below the infobox). And there, it's properly referenced. Not sure why the names of the children are relevant to an article on a businessman, of this short length (a book, maybe); unless any of those children are themselves wp:notable, which they don't appear to be. But I do grant you that it's less irrelevant in a bio on someone from two centuries ago. The title themes him as a businessman. None of the children are noted as taking over the business.

And I wonder why it's deemed important enough to elevate simply the number of children (6) into the infobox, whether some outlying rule says you can, or not. What are we conveying? That he was a good Catholic, and she didn't use contraception? But the doubling up so close is my primary objection to including such peripheral information right at the top of the article. Tony (talk) 01:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks for your explanation. --Greg Henderson (talk) 02:04, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]