Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Paul Donahue, 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 KEEP. postdlf (talk) 14:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James Paul Donahue, Jr.[edit]

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

nn, "known professionally" but no profession listed-being an heir or a claimant of gossip does not make one notable Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A search on Google Books shows many additional quality sources for impact on the historic record, more than sufficient for WP:Notability (people)#Any biography to be satisfied. Being known as a gay playboy is not an argument against the notability criteria. --Fæ (talk) 13:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nor did I make the argument that it is. For that matter, it's not an argument for it. Don't put words in others' mouths.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Er, from the sources his being a gay playboy was the main source of gossip. Were you referring to something else when you included the word "gossip" in your nomination? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, because I actually read the article, where it says "Donahue claimed he had a four year affair with Wallis, Duchess of Windsor, the wife of the Duke of Windsor, the former King of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth realms, who was born Prince Edward in the 1890s. However, Donahue was notorious for his inventive pranks and rumor-mongering." Which does not make him any more notable than those that harass actual notables nowadays. Again, stick to the words others use, not your interpretation of them.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was using words from the sources, why should I make them up? "No doubt the most famous and notoriously Gay New York archetypal playboy of the 20th century was Jimmy Donahue" is direct from Seattle Gay News as cited in the article, if you are in doubt as to the main thrust of gossip being about his gay antics, I suggest you read the extensive list of them in the SGN article. It sounds like he had a great time of it. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so you're not reading the Wikipedia article as it stands, as I am. Apology accepted. I understand. Some people weren't raised to treat others with common decency. Keep working on it.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to apologise for my upbringing. I'll pass your comments on to my Mother, unfortunately my Father is long dead so I am unable to pass on your feedback for his failures. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (rap) 11:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being a friend of notable people doesn't make you notable. Jarvis Sherbourne (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A book-length treatment generally implies multiple independent reliable sources offline. Wilson's book is reviewed by Kirkus and Cahners at Amazon. Neither reviewer likes the book, but the book itself is entirely about the subject's relationship with the demi-royal couple. St. Martin's is not self-publishing. IMHO, the Hingham and Wilson books put this past GNG. Subject may be tawdry, but he's verifiable and notable. BusterD (talk) 14:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 01:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A third relist is exceptional, but I couldn't think of a good way to close this; is this person really notable? Black Kite (talk) 01:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Evaluate- NYT paywall obit [1]. Dru of Id (talk) 01:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the Times obit, which corroborates notability, and per BusterD's cogent argument re the published book-length biography. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject of a book-length biography is normally notable, and there's a bit more material to corroborate (obits don't necessarily prove notability, but they can help). --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination misrepresents our notability guideline which has nothing to do with the worth or respectability of the subject; it's just a matter of notice and sources which this subject has in abundance. Warden (talk) 12:28, 19 April 2012 (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.