Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John W. Goode

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) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 02:29, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John W. Goode

John W. Goode (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN John from Idegon (talk) 17:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep he appears to me to meet the WP:GNG, with solid sourcing. This isn't a one reference, one paragraph biographical stub that we typically bring to AFD. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 00:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 00:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm not impressed with the sourcing and Richard Arthur Norton would do well to read them. The Alcalde mention is in a deceased alumni section and Goode doesn't get an actual obit, just a mention. It's a fine citation to source his education but GNG requires that there is sufficient coverage to confer notability. The other sources are also problematic. The U-T link talks about an archive of pictures from San Antonio Express-News where Goode is pictured. That Goode had his picture in the paper isn't notable nor is the fact the University has said pictures. It's fine to use the website as a source but again, people are trying to hang general notability on this stuff. There's an old issue of The Historian listing my name as a member of Phi Alpha Theta and that's fine to source my membership but you can't call me generally notable if you pile up a half-dozen such mentions. In all, I think Goode ought to be the subject of some good secondary-source academic writing in the future and that would suffice for notability. Right now, I'm guessing Goode fails our notability criteria although I'm not going to vote for deletion because I'm not a deletionist and I think there will be enough coverage for us to presume notability. Let's also remember Goode also fails WP:MILPEOPLE. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails the notability guidelines for politicians since he lost, any mention of his role in the race can be included in the article on the winner. The obituary is not enough to establish notability. We need a good secondary source article, which may well be justified, but it does not exist, so we should delete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This was a major congressional race between a Mexican-American Democrat and a white Republican at a time, 1961, when neither group had that much clout in Texas politics. Later Mexican-American Democrats and Republicans would dominate the state. The election was important enough to bring in a former President, Dwight Eisenhower, to join the campaign. Hot Furnace (talk) 17:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  @Hot Furnace: Could you make a policy-based argument? This argument is about a person, not a race, anyway. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:38, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment In this case, the candidate was not elected but he was important in the historical sense. We shouldn't restrict politicians with articles to only those who won an office. Hot Furnace (talk) 23:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.AustralianRupert (talk) 07:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep based on my standards. He served in several civic and political committees at a fairly high level. Bearian (talk) 20:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based on national coverage of the election and Eisenhower campaigning. The article needs work as I would say at least the first 50% is background that doesn't address what makes him notable, and the election is insufficiently covered. I'll add to it if the result is keep, based on things such as [1] and [2]. This is not just the case of a run-of-the-mill congressional challenger that lost. MB (talk) 22:22, 21 June 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.