Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth F. 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 delete. Consensus is the sourcing isn't there to keep this article Star   Mississippi  13:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Kenneth F. Goldstein

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

De-prodded with addition of sources, but the sources added are either WP:PRIMARY, not reliable, or passing mentions. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete Inadequate sourcing to meet notability for WP: GNG. Sources are not independent nor reliable. NiklausGerard (talk) 19:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Well I de-prodded it because the sources are all reliable and the subject is also an author of 3 books/novels plus other involvements. I just read WP:GNG and it states A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. So, as per my knowledge I believe it meets the criteria. Thank you JK.Kite (talk) 09:29, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Where is the coverage you speak of, though? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 14:23, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * As per my experience on Wikipedia and statements of WP:GNG I believe this is enough in this case but if you really think this article should be removed I have no problem at all. I only give my neutral point of view because I have seen many other articles that are still on Wikipedia for no reason. Anyway, I respect your opinion but I still believe it passes WP:GNG. JK.Kite (talk) 16:54, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Keep Hello, I included several sources mentioning the subject. 71.223.99.63 (talk) 01:20, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: I suspect that some ballot box stuffing is going on Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Mentioning isn't enough. They have to be mainly about him, not just name-dropped in passing. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:29, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * — 71.223.99.63 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Keep Judging by the sources, this should pass WP:GNG. Captain Galaxy  23:15, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment As has been noted elsewhere, the AFD nominator shouldn't relist an AFD discussion. There are plenty of editors and admins who can take care of that step. Liz Read! Talk! 00:06, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Does not pass NAUTH. No evidence of his books in libraries (Worldcat), no reviews in the more reliable sources (Publishers Weekly, Kirkus) and he has no VIAF entry which means that no library in Worldcat has created an entry for any of his books. So the books listed here do not confer notability. Note that his books were published as "Ken Goldstein" not "Kenneth" and that's how you find him on Amazon. Lamona (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. I went through all the sources and trimmed out all the ones that failed verification or came from clearly unreliable sources. What remains seems to be trivial mentions that don't appear to confer notability. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. As much as ferret hates me for doing this, I am going to participate and say delete for this article due to failed notability. There is just not enough significant coverage. PerryPerryD  Talk To Me 18:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Passing references and an interview do not add up to multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject. Springnuts (talk) 08:11, 23 April 2022 (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.