Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Gold (politician)

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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Gold (politician)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Despite WP:POLITICIAN, no evidence that this person has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Cited source is trivial coverage. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:14, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:12, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:12, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A cursory search in Google Books yields a few hits. Late 18th/early 19th-century sources are most likely off line, but as guideline supplements say, such persons rarely come ex-nihilo. From the sources found so far, the subject was a farmer, a merchant and a church deacon. • Gene93k (talk) 09:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:50, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The politician rules mean everyone ever elected to a state legislature for which we can verrify this fact is notable and we should have an article on them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I strongly suspect that To Marry an Indian: The Marriage of Harriett Gold and Elias Boudinot in Letters, 1823-1839 edited by Theresa Strouth Gaul with letters by Elias Boudinot and Harriett Gold Boudinot published by the

University of North Carolina Press in 2005 and running 222 pages will have enough information on Benjamin Gold to justfy this entry.John Pack Lambert (talk)

First, WP:OTHERSTUFF, if no coverage exists beyond this person exist and had this role to support an article beyond this stub line, why devote an article towards him versus having him in a list article? Strong suspicions that a person has coverage is not actually verifying significant coverage as notability is not inherited. Also aren't relying on the letter themselves primary sources (again this is a presumption there is actually coverage) if there is no critical analysis? Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to the points raised above this book, published by a university press, has a chapter about Benjamin Gold, and mentions his name on 23 pages. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Despite the poor condition of the article, sufficient evidence has been produced to likely eventual improvement. In Wikipedia, eventually is generally fast enough, as cleanup has no deadline. Additionally, the nominator's presumption that coverage does not exists despite the evidence produced so far goes against WP:BIO's express statement that office holders like the subject are presumed to be notable. Finally, guidelines require sources to be reliable and independent, not that they provide critical analysis. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to disagree on the issue of primary versus secondary coverage. Republishing historical letters that two people sent each other provides no more proof of notability without any commentary (or critical analysis) by the secondary source similar to interview transcripts. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, the article is in poor condition as written, and needs significant improvement — but verifiable members of state legislatures have a straight pass of WP:NPOL #1. It's true that for politicians in the 19th century, our articles are often of poor quality — but it's not that they don't have sources, it's that Wikipedians tend to be lazy about locating any sources above and beyond whatever they can find in a quick Google News search, so topics outside of the current news cycle often get overlooked and undersourced. But our rule is not that the article has to surpass any particular quality level — if the appropriate sources merely exist to improve the article with, then we keep the article and just flag it for improvement. Bearcat (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article needs some serious expansion but the subject clearly meets WP:NPOL. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:23, 24 February 2020 (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.