Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Goldman (2nd nomination)

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. (non-admin closure) Jdcomix (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Goldman[edit]

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

Goldman is obviously only notable for one event. THE DIAZ ^{talk • contribs} 21:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 August 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a ridiculous nomination. WP:BLP1E clearly states that "we should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met." Not one, each. It's true that condition #1 is met. You could even make an argument that #2 is met, although that's up for debate. What's definitely not up for debate is that he doesn't, in any way, meet condition #3: "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." Obviously the event was massively significant, and his role was extremely well documented. As he was one of the people killed in the event, you tell me, was his role substantial? Rockypedia (talk) 22:37, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

note - prior AFD was Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ronald_Goldman. Jytdog (talk) 23:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Massive sourcing available as one of two victims in the O.J. Simpson Affair; terrible nomination. The L of "BLP" stands for Living, which Mr. Goldman sadly is not; ergo BLP-1E doesn't even apply. TROUT to the ready... Carrite (talk) 00:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Why are we discussing WP:BLP1E? I'd think WP:BIO1E is more appropriate, given the murder was over 20 years ago. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Highly notable crime victim. bd2412 T 02:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While this AfD does not meet any of the criteria outlined for a speedy keep, Goldman is the subject of such extensive coverage that there is very little question, IMO, that this is a keep. I predict a virtual blizzard will close this case fairly soon. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Goldman satisfies criteria number 3 in the reasoning that Diaz linked above. The murders were a significant event and Goldman's role as a victim is well documented. --Adam in MO Talk 09:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP is a tertiary source. We summarize secondary sources that are WP:RS. There are plenty to summarize for this subject. Thus the article should exist.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep WP:SK#1 WP:NPASR No argument for deletion. The WP:BIO1E lede states, "When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both." Does the nominator or anyone else see the word "deletion" there? Unscintillating (talk) 01:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I decided to check out why it was that people were talking about "BLP1E". It seems that the nominator has made a quiet edit in violation of WP:TPG. I also note the edit comment that claims BIO1E is a "policy". Unscintillating (talk) 01:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Goodness what a poorly-chosen nomination this is, the victim of one of the most notorious murders of the 20th century. Tens of hundreds of books, films, documentaries, dramatizations. Goldman doesn't get the level coverage in those that OJ or Nicole get, but the coverage is still significant in its own right. TheValeyard (talk) 13:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This individual's murder was the basis for one of the most famous trials of the twentieth century. What's also relevant here is the international nature of this individual's notability. People around the world are aware of OJ Simpson's murder trials and how this person is connected with them. I am for one, quite surprised to see this nominated for deletion. My opinion, we keep this article on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlyingBlueDream (talk • contribs) 09:37, 21 August 2017 (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.