Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Goldberg (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 delete. v/r - T P 02:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Goldberg

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

No indication he meets the requirements of WP:BIO. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a memorial piece. Fails notability guidelines as a politician (losing candidate for NYC City Council) and as a website proprietor. Notability seems connected to family relations, including his clearly notable brother, who is a nationally known political columnist. My condolences to family and friends with respect to the subject's unfortunate recent death. Carrite (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I know he's likely not to be considered individually notable, but don't see why content can't largely be put into personal section of mother's article. I see no reason to eliminate this content from the project.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & keep content: Though this editor would rather see this article kept since the events are newsworthy (and if you enter the

blogosphere you might discover that his death has never been fully explained) Milowent's suggestion that it be merged into the mother article seems to be the proper solution- I do resent the article being called a memorial piece it is disrespectful and truthfully find the offhand condolences disengenousMasterknighted (talk) 01:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am using the official term for what Wikipedia is NOT and am completely earnest in my condolences, of which I find your challenging to be tactless. I won't get into the conspiracy theories of the blogosphere but will leave that to others; it certainly doesn't add towards notability in my own view. Carrite (talk) 06:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTMEMORIAL#MEMORIAL. Carrite (talk) 06:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Carrite, when invoking a law or regulation for another entity and then offering condolences you come across as a law giver as if a decision has been made before it has and it appears to me not to be in good tasteMasterknighted (talk) 14:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per WP:NOTMEMORIAL#MEMORIAL--Kylfingers (talk) 22:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:BIO requirements.NearTheZoo (talk) 23:12, 10 November 2011 (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.