Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Gould

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep since there is no consensus to delete. Sjakkalle (Check!)  1 July 2005 11:01 (UTC)

Joe Gould
Non-notable. Delete. Hmib 04:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Chairboy 04:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. Nonsense. -- Natalinasmpf 04:23, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not exactly nonsense, just very non-notable. -Hmib 04:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. He's portrayed in Cinderella Man, which will certainly increase his notability. About 500 google refs apart from the movie (71,000 with the movie). Pburka 04:29, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable. JamesBurns 07:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable. Kappa 10:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This is not the eccentric from Greenwich Village. This is the man who managed a boxer. Pburka's reasoning is shaky.  If one reads the fine print in credits for biographical movies, one finds that such movies often combine or alter peripheral characters for dramatic purposes.  Relying upon a movie as evidence is dodgy.  Better sources are ones such as this.  The article as it stands does not satisfy the WP:BIO criteria.  It is not clear that it could.  It appears that Joe Gould himself did not achieve "renown or notoriety".  Mention in James J. Braddock and Delete. Uncle G 12:18, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sorry, Uncle G, but I have to disagree with your reasoning here. His large and memorable presence in such a big movie makes it certain that some people will want to know more about him, even if the character in the movie is a misrepresentation. Therefore, we give them the facts. --Scimitar 16:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, they won't find anything, and you didn't get the point. The only thing that this article tells us about the real person is that he was someone else's manager.  That doesn't meet the WP:BIO critiera.  (The only other thing that I found out about this person from research was that he was "confident" in June 1935 &mdash; see the above link &mdash; and that he gave his 1915 Passover suit to a friend.   Those don't meet the WP:BIO critiera, either.)  The rest of what this article tells us is about a character in a movie.  It tells us what the name of the movie was and what the actor's name was who played the character.  That information belongs (and is already to be found in) the article on the movie, not here. Uncle G 23:04, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
 * Keep per Scimitar. DS1953 16:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, definitely. I created this page, and I'm agreeing with whoever said that since the movie, Cinderella Man, people will want to know more about him. And yeah, I don't think he was an eccentric from Greenwich Village. posted by XLikeAGazelleX.
 * The eccentric from Greenwich Village had a movie made about him (Joe Gould's Secret, starring Ian Holm). This Joe Gould hasn't.  This Joe Gould is just a supporting character in a movie about someone else.  This Joe Gould is just a boxing manager, one of many such, and one that doesn't meet the WP:BIO criteria. Uncle G 23:04, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think the WP:BIO guideline criteria apply here, due to the function of providing information to distinguish between the character and the real person.  Purpose of an encyclopedia's to explain things to people who don't already know them, after all.  The Literate Engineer 00:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The article is a biography about the person Joe Gould. Of course the Criteria for inclusion of biographies applies.  The character is (already) covered in the article on the movie that it appears in.  If you want to explain to people that James J. Braddock's manager was a person named Joe Gould, mention it in James J. Braddock, as I said above. Uncle G 01:11, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)
 * Disambiguate. We should have an article about the "Professor Seagull" Joe Gould, or at least about the book and movie Joe Gould's Secret. That's who I assumed this page would be about. This guy's obviously pretty insignificant, but if the info added to the substub is true, and not just from the movie, then I can go along with keeping this. -R. fiend 16:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I included the additional data, and it is from independent sources, not the movie (I'd list them, but it took half an hour on google to find 'em, and I'm too lazy to do it again.) --Scimitar 19:49, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Cinderella Man and Joe Gould (disambiguation) until someone researches deeper than Google and comes up with some biographical information. Until then, the merges should satisfy curious readers. Dystopos 20:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. This individual is notable. Hall Monitor 22:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * For being a Lieutenant in the Army? Not according to the WP:BIO criteria, he isn't. Uncle G 02:47, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
 * Please be WP:CIVIL. Hall Monitor 17:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Commenting that someone is not notable, according to the WP:BIO criteria, for being a Lieutenant in the Army is perfectly civil. Uncle G 23:40, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
 * The article does not claim he is notable for being a Lieutenant. The article says he managed a world heavyweight champion - a champion whose management is noteworthy because of wartime PR issues, and a character of sufficient standing to have been portrayed in a movie. There's no need to be sarcastic, just as there is no need to be nitpicky on "notability" issues if verifiability and NPOV are ok. Dystopos 00:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Oh, that's what Joe Gould's Secret is. Thanks, Uncle G. I'll be looking up more about this guy soon. I'd like to keep this article. Posted by XLikeAGazelleX
 * Delete. Gamaliel 17:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * keep this one please Yuckfoo 22:05, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.