Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jay Gould III


 * 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; consensus is that his media coverage was not substantial enough.  Sandstein  18:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Jay Gould III

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Is this notable? Should it be merged to the Jay Gould article? SunDragon34 (talk) 07:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - notability in Wikipedia means that the media has taken notice of you ... so that there are "multiple reliable sources" to confirm the information in the article --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There is more than just that to it; see WP:BIO. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 11:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - notability is not inherited from notable relatives. Reyk  YO!  07:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notability not established, references are little more than gossip column entries. No big deal ... WWGB (talk) 08:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The apparent reason those articles were published was his lineage, which does not make him notable here.  Otherwise, being married and divorced is not notable in and of itself, even if married three times.  I would ordinarily say merge, but I don't see any relevant information at all.  --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 11:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  09:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Divorce us from this article. It has irreconcilable differences with WP:BIO.  Jim Miller  See me 14:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. If not for all the sourcing I would call this an A7 speedy; there is no assertion of notability within the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Article needs more content, but the scope and breadth of the sources indicates that this is someone who the media of his time deemed notable, regardless of current impressions. The reliable and verifiable sources provided satisfy the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 04:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Um? What notability standard is this?  The one in WP:BIO appears unmet to me.  As I said, being put in a couple gossip magazines for being married and divorced does not confer notability.  --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 05:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Um? The seven sources in the article come from Time magazine, the Los Angeles Times, the Hartford Courant and The New York Times. Which of these meets your definition of "gossip magazines"? Alansohn (talk) 05:23, 7 August 2008 (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.