Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Donegan


 * 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.

Edward Donegan
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn - more sources available than were initially located, topic is not borderline. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 06:09, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I can only find two entries in books for this guy. The first entry, in "Bootleggers and Beer Barons of the Prohibition Era" is a single page explaining his story (a full page, but still just the one) and is the current basis for the article. The second is in "The Spirits of America", and outright states that "little is known" about the guy. That's all I could find. I'm perfectly happy to be wrong, but I just don't know if one page in one book satisfies WP:GNG. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 04:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 05:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 05:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - In addition to those sources, there are:
 * Υπογράφω (talk) 05:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Υπογράφω (talk) 05:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Υπογράφω (talk) 05:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Υπογράφω (talk) 05:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Easy keep here. Apart from the Bootleggers... book that covers the subject significantly, the book Spirits of America covers him more comprehensively, after the initial statement that "little is known". In fact, that statement is made to justify providing more information about him. And then you have as significant a coverage in The Tax Dodgers, a repeat significant coverage in a publication by the New York Magazine Company. In short, I suspect the nominator might have missed checking Google Books properly, as I wouldn't have expected the nomination in the first place by an administrator. Lourdes  05:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As I said, I'm perfectly happy to be wrong. When I checked Google Books, "The Tax Dodgers" didn't come up (faulty Google search I'm sure, but in good faith), and the section in "Spirits of America" I could see online was restricted and only showed the first page with the bit about "little is known". So as far as I could tell, there was just the one page and it seemed borderline to me, hence the nom. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 06:03, 24 January 2017 (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.