Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E. J. Gold

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 move to draftspace. czar 04:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

E. J. Gold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

does not meet WP:BIO Wcdillon (talk) 08:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article has various problems but Gold is an established and notable writer in his field. Ontologicos (talk) 06:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keepDelete Comment - Based on searches, I am seeing that he writes a lot, but I'm not seeing much written about him, except in some books. It's really hard to see what we're supposed to evaluate though - it seems like every interest he's ever had - he's known for - and at least in one case one of his books is make to look like it was just by his co-author. I'm going to do a little tidying up to see what's really here.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that most of the article was original research or based upon primary sources. I could dig up some more information, but not enough to establish notability. He may have published a lot - but it isn't written about much by other authors. If it is kept, this is a biography that may be useful.--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have been thinking about this one a lot. I think I got such a negative taste in my mouth because of the way the article was written. There was use of primary sources made to look like secondary sources, saying he's known for about everything under the sun, and reminded me of a very similar autobiographical page. There was also a lot of uncited content. It all looked like a giant masquerade at this verion. However, the more that I think about it - there are books that mention him - and I mentioned a biographical article above. I am not interested in working on the article, but if someone was, it's possible that this could be built into a better article.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane talk 01:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 12:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:27, 24 December 2016 (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.