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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barnet J. Segal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Part of a self reverential walled garden (created by one editor) of every last grain of sand in Carmel-by-the-Sea, referenced by non RS hyper local media. Fails WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:BIO 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and California. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 23:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - appears to be a historically significant person. Those with long ties to the community say Segal is as important a person as Carmel has ever had. - Agha, Laith (15 Oct 2006). "Recalling City's Quiet Leader: Barnet Segal's importance to Carmel inspires debate". McClatchy - Tribune Business News. ProQuest 463233258. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Big difference between being regarded as an important person of NYC vs being regarded as important that's a city that is township level in terms of size. There's so much sentence for sentence duplicate contents with other articles. Graywalls (talk) 19:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral While I think's too hyper-local, it seems like consensus is building towards retaining it, so I will just abstain. Graywalls (talk) 12:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Graywalls - I don't agree that one city is more important than the other. Can you point to a policy here that would explain that? KatoKungLee (talk) 00:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Most of the article is from a single source, the Carmel Pine Cone, and that is a strike against notability. There is an obit in that publication, some minor mentions in the SF Chronicle, and almost a page in the Dramov book. My "keep" is weak also because I don't find sources more modern that would show his notability. But it's also "keep" because the local sources are extensive. BTW, small places can be important, too. I don't know what the duplicates are that you are finding - if you have time, could you elaborate? That could make a difference. Lamona (talk) 03:22, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Lamona:, look at Harrison_Memorial_Library#Barnet_J._Segal_Reading_Room, for example. This article and that article appears to be part of the Carmel-by-the-Sea themeed walled garden WP:CFORK. The Dramov book is an WP:ARCADIA book, which I would consider to be essentially no impact on claiming notability. Graywalls (talk) 05:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have a different take on Arcadia. Small publisher, specializing in local history. Obviously won't have the gravitas of Oxford U Press, but seems to be strong in its niche. It is NOT self-publishing, and actually pays royalties to authors. I did a publisher search in WorldCat library database and got over 5K titles - so held in many more than 5K libraries. Also, I don't mind that there is duplication between related articles. In my experience, duplication between related articles is the norm. Lamona (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Isaidnoway Nvss132 (talk) 14:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per Isaidnoway and Lamona. This is significant coverage at a minimum, the Dramov book sounds like SIGCOV, and its also worth noting that WP:NBASIC states If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:14, 12 August 2024 (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.