Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Goldstein


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

James Goldstein

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

non-notable living person Bricology (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC) Goldstein's alleged notability is twofold: he is an "NBA superfan" who attends many basketball games, and he owns a much-photographed modernist house. Neither of these meet the standards of WP:N. The vast majority of the article reads like a PR release or a human interest story. Bricology (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Notability is based on coverage in independent sources, and I think Goldstein would qualify for an article. The article was started in 2006, but Goldstein is still being discussed in the media (here, here and here, for example). Goldstein even wrote a column for NBA.com, and while that probably wouldn't count as an independent source, it does indicate that he has earned a place in NBA lore. Zagal e jo^^^ 05:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Surely notability does not merely consist of "coverage in independent sources". There's an infinite number of "independent sources" (blogs, zines, etc.), but even if 3 of them every year mention some otherwise non-notable character, real or fictional, that does not confer sufficient notability to warrant a lengthy Wiki.  Goldstein seems to be "famous" for being noticed, and therefore, gets mentioned here and there, like the fan who always shows up for Red Sox games wearing a giant mohawk wig.  Noticeable and noticed, sure.  Notable?  Not really.  And as far as being part of "NBA lore" goes -- all sports have their own "lore".  But who cares about preserving the lore of someone who was a "superfan" of cricket test matches in Australia in the 1850s-1880s?  That's the level of "notability" we're talking about here.  Underneath it all, Goldstein is nothing more than a rich basketball fan.  The very most that he deserves to have on WP is a brief article acknowledging his ubiquity, rather than the lengthy human interest story-cum-press release that exists now. And by encouraging articles about otherwise non-notable people like Goldstein, we might as well start writing wikis about the hundreds of other sports fans who have been "noticed" by the media. But somehow I doubt that this was what Denis Diderot had in mind when he created the first encyclopedia. Bricology (talk) 08:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, we do have the category sports spectators, which is mostly people with similar claims to notability (Crazy Ray, Rollen Stewart, etc). Yes, I know, "other crap exists", but at least a few of those articles have been to AFD and survived, so there's evidence that the community tolerates such pages - as long as basic sourcing requirements are met. (Frankly, I'd be more interested in reading about a 19th century cricket superfan than any actual cricket players.) Zagal e jo^^^ 01:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Good grief -- a "sports spectators" category?! Idiocracy has arrived.  How long before we have a "TV spectators" category?  Will the "number 1 'Breaking Bad' fan" get their own Wiki?  Anyway, if Goldstein is judged to have enough "notability" (by the currently debased standards) to warrant an article, I'll acquiesce. But I can't help feeling a bit disgusted with any so-called encyclopedia that would enable the glorification of such trivial "notability".  And I doubt that encyclopedists like Pliny the Elder, M. Diderot or Herren Funk & Wagnalls would've been much impressed. Bricology (talk) 07:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This is the kind of content Wikipedia has had for years. And Pliny the Elder didn't even have electricity, so lord knows what he'd think about anything on the internet today. Zagal e jo^^^ 07:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "And Pliny the Elder didn't even have electricity..." er...no shit. Neither did Diderot.  My point (which I thought was obvious) was that the men responsible for the most important encyclopedia of the past 3 millennia would never have considered a sports fan to be worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.Bricology (talk) 08:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I got your point. What I'm trying to say is that Wikipedia does not have the same limitations as reference works created hundreds of years ago. Anyway, it would be nice to cite some specific Wikipedia guidelines, rather than guessing what dead people would think. This feels like an AfD discussion from 2005. Zagal e jo^^^ 00:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I am wondering how Goldstein made his money and why he is so secretive about this. The silly article should be deleted instantly.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.235.153 (talk) 12:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Because he is secretive about his money? Zagal e jo^^^ 18:59, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep An odd article to be on Wikipedia? Maybe, but that's the beauty of this website; people can go here for information on esoteric topics assuming they pass GNG, which this man seems to do. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete (Note: Nominators of articles for deletion cannot !vote again. We already know what your stance is, that's why you nominated it. This is duplicate vote-stacking.) I would entirely disagree with your claim that "the beauty of WP" is that it contains worthless articles like "notable sports fans".  Instead, such articles cheapen WP and reduce it to a mere compendium of trivia. Bricology (talk) 08:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - He's being noted as a superfan over a sustained period of time as established by coverage in independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 21:09, 1 October 2013 (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.