This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia
@DMVHistorian Hi! I don't think that this should be a separate article. Treating this separately from Smithfield brings no advantage to Wikipedia, since the topics are so closely connected. Basically someone who is interested in the history of Smithfield should be presented with this information via history of Smithfield, VA, and someone who is interested in Arthur Smith IV is certainly interested in this historical person for no reason other than him being the founder of Smithfield, and will see no fault in the little biographical information on him that exists being found in the Smithfield article. Seeing how both articles are relatively short, I think that all of it should be covered in one article. Sincerely, —Alalch E.17:48, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Alalch E., thank you very much for the thoughtful comments and your improvements to the article. I personally would disagree with folding the entirety of this article into the Smithfield, Virginia article. I believe that Smith's role in incorporating the town, service as a colonial politician, and building the current structure known as Windsor Castle (now a Virginia landmark on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places) warrants having his own article. I do not personally believe that "someone who is interested in Arthur Smith IV is certainly interested in this historical person for no reason other than him being the founder of Smithfield" is an entirely accurate statement. Of course, I understand if other editors disagree with my thoughts and would prefer condensing and covering everything in one article. In the meantime, I will do my level best to add additional references and information to enhance the article. If we don't speak before, I hope you have a wonderful New Year. Thank you! DMVHistorian (talk) 19:04, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
