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 no consensus. Sandstein 18:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Jacob Gold

Jacob Gold (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)

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

No indication of being notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Sock. scope_creep ^Talk 07:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. jp× g 08:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. jp× g 08:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. jp× g 08:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. jp× g 08:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. jp× g 08:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep per the sources currently in the article. I get the skepticism of the reliability of sources on fake business gurus in recent years (especially with paid pieces on magazines like Forbes and Fortune), and I wanted to say delete just for that stupid author name alone. However, looking at the sources currently in the article, I really don't get why the nominator thought there was no significant coverage. He has a full article on him in The Wall Street Journal, and he has been interviewed for his financial experiences and advice in sources like the Time, CNN, MSNBC, and US News. Searching on Google News also gives me this Patch article listing him as one of the worst New York City landlords of 2016, a New York Times article interviewing him, another Wall Street Journal, another one, and the fact that one of his books got published by Wiley is also pretty significant. I know, with that last one, WP:Notability is not inherited. But, look at that mixed with the other evidence I provided. If that first WSJ profile I mentioned happens to be a paid piece (where I don't know if it is, hopefully not), I'll change my decision to a moderate keep. 👨x🐱 ( talk) 13:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC) reply

The first one is fairly decent, but the rest are very weak. One looks like a paid profile, another one is a statement-based, passing mention, the bad landlord is a passing mention. All in all, they are pretty weak in terms of depth. Certainly, coverage i'd say, but the seems on the surface fairly weak, more so because of the link with his dad, has received it. See what happens. Could be wrong. scope_creep ^Talk 15:25, 21 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Honestly, some of these sources do actually interview him for opinions and advice. I wouldn't consider those just passing mentions. 👨x🐱 ( talk) 15:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep Between the NY Times profile piece, multiple non-self-published books, and then many many articles where te subject is interviewed by various journalists as parts of broader financial articles, this subject seems notable. Most importantly, going by the spirit of GNG (remember when guidelines had a purpose?) it seems reasonable to conclude for rhese reasons that enough sources can be reasonably presumed to exist to build a decent article. Hyperion35 ( talk) 22:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC) reply

A lot of presumptions in there without an actual examination of references. Where are the book reviews to satisfy WP:AUTHOR? The coverage is minor and insufficient to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. Interviews and profiles don't cut it and are dependent. scope_creep ^Talk 23:20, 21 April 2021 (UTC) reply

What is there seems to go back into the 1970's. That is worth a look. Sustained coverage over years is certainly notable. scope_creep ^Talk 17:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete. The WSJ profile is a solid source but all the other sources that I have looked at (the sources in the article and the sources mentioned above, including the NYT piece) are too weak. They quote his opinions about something but don't really cover him "directly and in detail" as WP:GNG requires. For satisfying WP:GNG or WP:BIO I'd want to see a few more sources with the kind of direct coverage that the WSJ source provides. Nsk92 ( talk) 18:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • The fact that he's interviewed by sources like CNN for financial info at all, I would say, makes him notable, but I could understand the concern about coverage not being about himself. 👨x🐱 ( talk) 00:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 22:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep: Per sources surfaced as part of this AFD. I wanted to vote to delete after reading the article but it seems there's a decent argument for notability. DocFreeman24 ( talk) 06:03, 17 May 2021 (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.