Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Goldberg

Dear Masterknighted, I recently created the page Joshua L. Goldberg and discovered the page you created on Joshua Goldberg in the process. After going back and forth for awhile, I nominated it for WP:PROD because it doesn't seem to pass the wikipedia test of notoriety, which as I'm sure you know means that there are a substantial number of neutral published articles that note the subject's achievements. Two of the three references for this article are from the subject's brother, and the third is a short tribute noting his death. I wanted to ensure that you knew the article has been recommended for deletion, so that you can join in the discussion to keep it if you think it should be retained. Thanks, NearTheZoo (talk) 21:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, Masterknighted -- thanks for your very positive response, which makes me feel we're editors working as a team. When I put up the new article Joshua L. Goldberg, and thought some people might look for it by typing in "Joshua Goldberg," I put a note in both articles about the other.  If Joshua Goldberg is deleted, then I'll take the note out of the Joshua L. Goldberg article and just make arrangements that anyone typing "Joshua Goldberg" is redirected to the newer article about the Navy Chaplain.  Having said that, I do hope you and your contact can find enough substantive neutral references to keep the first article. The problem is that now, not only are two articles by the subject's brother but the third (the "Rest in Peace" note) was written by someone who either knew him or his family.  This Joshua Goldberg ran for office but did not make it, and worked behind the scenes on projects (which might mean there are no solid published articles about that work) -- and just being a website or blog editor, or a tourguide, or a "staffer" for a gossip column, won't, unfortunately, make him notable enough. I see you deleted the note that proposed this page for deletion, so I reinstated it.  I'll ask an Administrator to take a look and make a final decision about deletion after you have a chance to add more refereces. Please remember that an article needs a pretty good number of neutral published references to pass the notoriety test. In the meantime, go to the talk page for the article to present your arguments to keep it. I'll ensure an administrator reads your comments. Good luck! NearTheZoo (talk) 17:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Why is I not listed on conversations on articles to be deleted. What contact there is no contactMasterknighted (talk) 18:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Good afternoon, where is the conversation for this proposed deletion? Second, apologies that it took this person so long to respond he was driving across the United States and could not respond properly on a hand-held and does not take laptops and i-pads on the road as a rule. It would seem rather strange to put up for routing to another Joshua Goldberg on the top of this article then to nominate it for deletion -it is as if you took a hit out on an article to be executed by yourself. if you did not have it in the crosshairs already this might be a surprise. Anyway the problem with the double attribution of Jonah Goldberg's elegies to his brother were posted by another more conservative contributor than I. However being that his family is who they are and were and his role in politics and information and opinion dissemination would prove a counter-weight to this nomination. i will put in other sources.Masterknighted (talk) 16:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Where is the deletion debate for this article? Second even though he was not victorious in the election he had a higher tally as republican for the seat than any candidate in years ---which is in itself notable in a heavily liberal democratic district of some fame. As well there is a new source listed form Commentary magazine. As well the readership level of the blogs he edited renders the subject notable. Masterknighted (talk) 21:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I added these to this belated record for this discourse on the article proposed be deleted as it was not added to this list and therefor the discussion should be extended until others can be weigh in. This articleMasterknighted (talk) 21:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC) should have been added immediately.