Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David L. Ganz


 * 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:34, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

David L. Ganz

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable county politician and mayor. He also seems to have served on the United States Assay Commission, but if you read that article, you will see at the time he served the commission served no purpose since the US government was no longer issuing gold or silver coins for circulation. I also do not see any of his books passing WP:AUTHOR. I also might mention that this article has virtually no sources. Rusf10 (talk) 03:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 05:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 05:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 05:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete A long article with only two sources; topic is not notable per WP:POLITICIAN and is largely an essay and may also violate copyright and/or WP:OR. SportingFlyer (talk) 07:17, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you justify your "maybe claims" with something substantive?
 * Comment Article is not based on his role as politician, part of his career.Djflem (talk) 11:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment If you remove the WP:POLITICIAN from the mix, he has to be notable for coin collecting under WP:NAUTHOR. But most of the article is unsourced fluff and would probably need to be rewritten in order to incorporate this. I'll go delete without prejudice. SportingFlyer (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * STRONG KEEP: Misconstrued nomination. Accomplished individual: author, numismatics expert, federal appointments, poltician. Djflem (talk) 12:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * We do not keep articles just because we deem the subject to be "accomplished" — we keep articles only when they can be referenced to enough reliable source coverage in media to pass WP:GNG for their accomplishments. But that's not what any of the sources here are. Bearcat (talk) 18:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. There are certainly potential notability claims here that could get him a Wikipedia article if he could be properly sourced over WP:GNG for them, but there's nothing here that entitles him to an automatic inclusion freebie just because he exists. There's one short blurb about him, which is not substantive enough to carry a GNG pass as an article's only reliable source, but everything else is either a primary source that cannot support notability in a Wikipedia article or an inherently unreliable source: Ancestry.com, his own staff profiles, the sales page of his book on an online bookstore, a review of his book on a non-notable blog, and another newspaper piece in which he's the author, not the subject. This is not the kind of sourcing it takes to make a person notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to hand him a free exemption from having to be referenced properly. Bearcat (talk) 18:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is a small bibliography of works written by the writer, David L. Ganz. If you would prefer them in ref format, that's also possible.




 * Comment-No one is questioning whether or not he wrote books. However, just writing books does not mean someone passes WP:AUTHOR--Rusf10 (talk) 22:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Notability as a writer is not established by simply listing his books — if that were all it took, we would have to keep an article about every single person who ever published a book at all. We require reliable source coverage about him and his books, not just a list of them. Bearcat (talk) 16:46, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Enos733 (talk) 21:53, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep The strong claim of notability as an author and numismatic columnist is backed up by ample evidence, as listed above. Deletion is not cleanup, nor is it a freebie for anyone with an axe to grind to ignore Wikipedia policy regarding establishing notability. Alansohn (talk) 13:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * To show that a person is notable as a writer, it is not sufficient to list a bibliography of his own works. To get an WP:AUTHOR pass, the article has to be referenced to reliable source media coverage about his writing of books, not metareferenced to the books themselves. So exactly none of what was added above supports notability as a writer at all. Bearcat (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly, his books do not prove his notability. Even if he wrote 1000 books it wouldn't matter. What matters is if people actually read his books and they receive coverage from other sources.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * SStrong delete The extremly subject-specific reviews in minor coin collecting publications do not add up to a pass of the general notability guidelines. Beyond this, Alansohn is being misleading in putting forth this arguement. A review of Alansohn's activities shows he has assumed that merely being elected as a county freeholder in any county in New Jersey, but evidently not to equivalent positions in any other state, makes someone notable on its own. That is why he created this and so many other articles on non-notable people, and so his arguments about Ganz role as a writer amount to a smoke screen to avoid facing the real issue, that this article was created on the assumption that Ganz was notable as a politician and Ganz clearly is not notable as a politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Reply Alansohn (talk) 21:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment The misformatted, end of comment links are 3-basically a set of blogs, and anyway all from one organization. 1-a work by Ganz himself, so of no value. Lastly a local New Jersey publication. We have expectations of significant indepth coverage, not local human interest fluff articles, especially when the subject is a living person. The coverage here is way below what we would expect for a business, and our guidelines on biographies of living people are more stringent than what is expected for articles on businesses. Contrary to the absurd claims of Alansohn, two sources do not an automatic pass of the general notability guidelines make.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:04, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   23:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * leaning delete This fellow is being pushed, in the article, primarily as a local politician, but it's pretty clear that, once again, it's all routine local coverage. Maybe the numismatics angle provides some real notability (though judging from the above commentary, that is questionable) but that's being used as a coat rack in this discussion for the real reason for his inclusion, which is his local government position. Mangoe (talk) 18:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete There is a lot of routine coverage of his political office but nothing that would pass the notability criteria for politicians and judges. He is quoted a lot on numismatics but, so far, I have not seen any articles about him. He is high profile enough that there should be some if there is anything of note to write. I am open to changing my !vote but, right now, the sources just are not adequate. — His book may qualify for an article under WP:NBOOKS though. Jbh  Talk  23:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.