Talk:David P. Goldman
|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to . If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.|
|WikiProject Biography / Arts and Entertainment||(Rated Start-class)|
|WikiProject Journalism||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
David P. Goldman merge
We should just make a redirect so David Goldman links here. Article might be retitled Spengler (David P. Goldman) or the reverse.
Old Spengler Page
Did the old "Spengler (Columnist)" page get deleted? There was a lot of information summarizing the very idiosyncratic personal ideology he's concocted over the years, and it was nice to have it all in one place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 06:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- It was apparently deleted in June 2008. Perhaps an admin could check to see if there is information there which might be included in the present article (which was created in March 2009)? __meco (talk) 16:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- I've tracked down and reviewed the earlier article, and its talk page. The old article was written almost entirely by a single-purpose editor who wrote his own interpretations of Spengler's writings, without reference to any 3rd-party sources. I didn't see any material worth bringing over. Will Beback talk 19:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually I think his notability is a tad marginal, but I think it's enough not to merit prodding. Still I'm feeling a bit bad so I might put a notability deal on him to replace it.--T. Anthony (talk) 08:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Has there been any major profile of him? I couldn't find any. Every thing I found was either blogs or just minor mentions. But if you thiink you can find more I'll wait a week before nominating it for AfD. Will Beback talk 08:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
He's very influential but I never knew of the LaRouche tie. I guess that's why he wrote offshore under what was until recently an unbreakable pseudonym. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 22:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for adding those cites. It does appear that his column is widely cited, though that doesn't directly translate into notability for the individual. Will Beback talk 23:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I took the long way back, but it is really notable subject. I've been going through all the removal's, never really seen this type before, only afd's. I'll probably stop with the G's tonight.184.108.40.206 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC).
- Despite the cited references to his column, I don't see how this individual meets WP:N. There are no secondary sources that really talk about the person. Why don't we run it through AfD and see what the community thinks? Will Beback talk 04:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- It seems like for journalists the secondary sources requirement is generally waived if the subject has appeared on TV a lot, written books, or written for notable enough publications. (e.g., Timothy Noah). Goldman may not meet those standards either though.Prezbo (talk) 08:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I am a public figure in the financial industry. I was a Forbes columnist for seven years, and I was the of a major bank research department. In case anyone's curious Credit Magazine did a lengthy profile of me in November 2006:
- Columnists are not automatically notable. The heads of bank departments are not necessarily notable (I'd guess that WP has very few biographies of people whose greatest achievement is running a department of a bank). Even a single profile in an industry publication does not indicate general notability. The relevant WP guideline is WP:BIO: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Multiple profiles would meet the requirement.
- The current version of the article, written entirely by the subject, is very poor. It contains unsourced information and jumps around the chronology. It'd be better to go back to the prior version and then add verifiable material. It's better if the subject of the article avoids making major changes to the article itself, beyond fixing obvious vandalism or errors. This talk page is a fine place to discuss improvements. Will Beback talk 05:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to overhaul the article. There are essentially two recent versions of the article. I'll check the references for both and rewrite the article based on those. This should be a short, simple bio. Will Beback talk 08:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)