Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E. J. Gold

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]

(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 keep~~Delete 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]

Comment, although one of Gold's books The American book of the dead is held by over 500 libraries, have been unable to find any reviews, did find this about Gold - "Little is known of Gold’s background and career due to his penchant for role playing, practical jokes, fabricating facts, and mythologising details of his life.", so it may be difficult to develop this article. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft as a solution as I also notice the library collections, but it's simply not the full substance we need and without sufficient improvements, if at all something imaginable, there's nothing to currently have in mainspace. SwisterTwister talk 04:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify to see if the article can be saved for the same reasons CaroleHenson and SwisterTwister state, though it may be difficult. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - if it can be developed into a true article, why not. If not, then simply delete in its current state. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just to confirm, I checked Book Review Digest & Index 1995 and 1996 for The American Book of the Dead and the only listing was Publishers Weekly, so there weren't popular press reviews czar 04:20, 31 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.