Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Goss (author)

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. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 14:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Goss (author)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. The article (originally entitled just Bill Goss) has been speedy-deleted, recreated, PRODDED, de-PRODDED (by the author), nominated again for speedy deletion, and de-nominated (with no reason given), so clearly deletion is not uncontroversial, despite the fact that that is how it looked to me when I found the article. Only one independent source is given, and that one just gives a brief couple of paragraphs. Web searches have produced lots of promotional pages, Goss's own site, Linkedin, FaceBook etc, but nothing that could be regarded as reliable independent sources. I really don't see how this could be thought to satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, as non notable. I don't know how CSD A7 would fare against "Bill Goss considers himself one of the world's leading experts on luck and overcoming adversity", but in any case third party coverage is very scarce. This is the only reference that provides significant content, but I can't say much about its reliability. I wasn't able to find any information about the Animal Planet show except youtube videos and pages from the subject's website. I found these two book mentions but that is all - frankie^MR (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Weak keep, as per below - frankie^MR (talk) 16:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep He actually gets a fair amount of coverage at Google News if you word the search right (I used "Bill Goss" plus "luckiest". If some decent sources are added and the fluff deleted, this could be an acceptable article. --MelanieN (talk) 15:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. While the results are not that many, they are solid, and put together with the previous ones it makes enough for a weak keep indeed. Cleanup and sourcing are still required, but notability is met. Taking duplicates out (and paywall aside) I think these are the substantial links 1 2 3 - frankie^MR (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as well. While I found the book signing coverage articles less significant than Patitomr, there were a few other Gnews references (a couple paragraphs in a WaPo article) and several places where Goss was covered in Gbooks hits. I'm going to call the Herald-Journal cite previously provided and WaPo the 2 sufficient to hit GNG. Throw back in a few book refs, the signings, and we're there with a bit of a margin. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 00:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.