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The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. –MuZemike 14:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur A. Goldberg[edit]

Arthur A. Goldberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Contested redirect. The article is a BLP mess because anon editors are pushing an article from the South Florida Gay News outing Arthur Abba Goldberg as a disbarred ex-con, but other editors claim that this guy is Arthur Avrum Goldberg. My rule of thumb is that if basic biographical details are unavailable, it's likely the subject isn't notable. The sourcing here shows this: if the SFGN story is thrown out under BLP, what's left is four WP:PRIMARY sources (one of which may be of Arthur Abba Goldberg), and two passing mentions in conjunction with his work at Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality. That's not enough to constitute significant secondary coverage under WP:BIO, and he doesn't appear to meet WP:AUTHOR, either. Please note that "Deputy Attorney General of New Jersey" (which is a disputed biographical detail according to the talk page) is a line-level staff attorney position, not a notable political position. THF (talk) 23:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge. The previous article was effectively deleted (by being redirected, with no attempt to merge information) hastily. Most of the primary sources are in keeping with WP:PRIMARY, as they establish non-controversial, non-interpretive descriptive claims. I will work on updating the primary sources myself over the next few days, as well as adding secondary sources. David L Rattigan (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. I have added and sourced the most recent allegations and updated other sources. I will keep working on the article, and I expect more content will be added as secondary sources become available. David L Rattigan (talk) 00:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC) I have added sources and updated older sources. The article now references valid primary sources and secondary sources. David L Rattigan (talk) 13:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If The Advocate is considered a reliable secondary source for a strong allegation, I agree that this meets WP:GNG; but the Advocate article, as best I can tell, is simply reporting the existence of the other article that other editors agreed wasn't sufficient. I honestly don't know the answer: how does Wikipedia handle bootstrapping? If The New York Times repeats a National Enquirer story (we'll put aside for the moment that the Enquirer has been more accurate than the Times in reporting presidential candidate adultery), is that enough to get the National Enquirer story into a BLP?

Comment. I'd have thought yes. If the NYT is considered a reliable source, it's no less reliable if it confirms a claim made by a less reliable source, is it? In any case, the allegation is a minor issue (at the moment). It has been removed, and the article has stood long enough without it; I don't see why it should be the defining issue. David L Rattigan (talk) 12:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Addition of an "alleged conviction" is clearly violative of BLP by a mile. WP does not like any poorly sourced contentious material, and speaking of an "alleged conviction" is about as contentious as one can get. This is, in fact, likely speedily deletable with such charges placed in it. Collect (talk) 11:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does that addition alone warrant a delete? Anyone can add an allegation to any article; the allegation is removed, not the article. David L Rattigan (talk) 12:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The SFGN report, as confirmed by the restatement in the Advocate, is a reliable source in reporting that Arthur Abba Goldberg and Arthur Avrum Goldberg are the same person. That means that this long-standing article ties to these results showing more than significant coverage back to the early 70s. Easily clears notability with all of that news coverage. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 13:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In fact, there was never any source to support the existence of an Arthur "Avrum" Goldberg. The only mention of it is in the JONAH article, which was edited by someone connected to JONAH after the fraud story broke. David L Rattigan (talk) 13:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, stunning this was redirected just as the links to his ex-gay and fraud histories were connected. Seem like he founded numerous special groups under various names for social and business purposes. Full view news articles going back thirty years are available. Also for those peering down the rabbit hole ... I just saw "Matthews & Wright executive Arthur Abba Goldberg (known in banking circles as "Abba Dabba Do" and "Abba Cadabra" for his flashy ways of bond financing." Plenty of sourcing and notability now shown to span decades. -- Banjeboi 13:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did think it extremely suspicious at first that it was redirected just as the story broke, but after analyzing the situation, the redirect was only indirectly related. David L Rattigan (talk) 13:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw nomination. None of the above excludes the possibility that there is a mistaken identity, but this google search shows that Arthur Abba Goldberg has the biographical details of the JONAH co-founder, which now moves it beyond reasonable doubt for me. THF (talk) 15:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I ran across this doing BLP patrol at NARTH, but agree that since The Advocate picked up this connection, he's notable. Like THF, I don't see a reasonable doubt that they Arthur Goldbergs are identical; the earlier edit to the JONAH article looks like a whitewash to me based on that editor's behavior. Jclemens (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with all of the above. It seems that beyond a reasonable doubt they are the same person. There is a LOT out there (including some fairly lengthy criminal records) on Arthur Abba Goldberg. Lou2u (talk) 04:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep This man is notable both for the size of the fraud committed but also for his anti-gay activism. Michaelh2001 (talk) 18:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EX-GAY WATCH has gotten confirmation from NARTH that the "Arthur A Goldberg" that is part of their board is indeed "Arthur Abba Goldberg". http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2010/02/narth-official-confirms-arthur-abba-goldberg-identity/ Lou2u (talk) 07:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Why hasn't someone closed this? I withdrew the nomination two days ago in response to new evidence. THF (talk) 00:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow can't apply if there remains delete votes. -- Banjeboi 02:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well SNOW could apply, but speedy close cannot. Collect's objection has as been unsupported by any other editor, however, so I'd say it's a reasonable SNOW candidate: discussion has been open, a nearly-unanimous consensus has been reached, and discussion is not ongoing. Jclemens (talk) 05:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Snow then <g>. as the material is now rewritten and appears now to be sourced. Collect (talk) 12:37, 20 February 2010 (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.