From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. I think there is sufficiently demonstrated consensus to keep, taking in considering the comments here and at Talk:Rob Goldstone.   Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 03:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Rob Goldstone

Rob Goldstone (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Textbook WP:1E case. — JFG talk 10:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Keep As WP:1E says, "However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified." A quick google news search of him reveal profile after profile on him. Moreover, he may pass WP:N without the current coverage. For example, he has interviews and articles with both the New York Times and NPR.
NYT: The Tricks and Trials of Traveling While Fat
NPR: Fat Traveler Prepares For 'Plus-Sized Ordeal'
Casprings ( talk) 14:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC) reply
Journos are not notable because they write. They are notable if people actually write about them. TheLongTone ( talk) 11:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, I looked him up today, and I am glad I quickly found an article on him. Comfr ( talk) 16:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Initially I would've said delete, but this exceeds BLP1E with pieces like this, in addition to others presented above and not yet mentioned. Coverage is mostly because of the one event (the email chain), but covers the person beyond the email chain, therefore not meeting BLP1E #1. The Russia-gate case is ever expanding, therefore not meeting BLP1E #2, and I think we can all agree that the event is significant so therefore not meeting BLP1E #3. The individual is already comparable to the Watergate burglars, who also have articles. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 17:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC) reply
Meh This guy is not your average mystery go-between, and since we don't presently know much, but as you point out the coverage of this individual as a person right now is quite intense. Also, the way he wrote the e-mail was strangely explicit (ham-fisted if friendly intent, pernicious if otherwise). At the same time, he's probably too cagey to have been used entirely unwittingly. All this makes him a lightning rod for speculation (yuck), but he's also at this point the primary name on what could turn out, once the dust settles, to be legally classified as an inducement extended to a Trump family member to break one of several stiff American laws. Still, if no other shoe drops, I'd probably delete this article within 30 days. — MaxEnt 20:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep at least for the time being. This has the potential to be of service to WP users who are trying to get a clear picture of these events. There were 17,000 page views on July 13, 2017 alone, which was two days after the article was created. KConWiki ( talk) 02:54, 15 July 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Casprings ( talk) 12:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: At this time, it is highly possible that there is more to this story. No need to delete at this time. We can revisit in six months to see whether BLP1E applies at that time. (Also per Muboshgu) Go Phightins ! 16:26, 15 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment If this reptile is independently notable, why is the article headed by a thingy announcing that it is one of a series of articles about the Donald? Incidentally, there was a long article about this affair in The Grauniad which did not mention his name once. TheLongTone ( talk) 14:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I wanted to know who he was after hearing about this 'music promoter', I came to Wikipedia and I found out more, so yes, keep Brunswicknic ( talk) 20:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Goldstone is likely to a short-lived news event. Nonetheless, in the saga of the 45th presidency, he has the potential to be a key player. If in six months nothing comes of it, the two paragraphs can be moved elsewhere and the article abandoned. I never cease to be amazed at how quickly an article is condemned as news or insignificant and nominated for deletion. It seems it is easier to be critical (delete!) than to be creative (give an article time to mature before making a decision). Rhadow ( talk) 13:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is clearly a case of WP:BLP1E; there's no claim he's notable apart from his involvement in Trump campaign–Russian meeting. I note WP:CRYSTAL regarding some of the speculation above that this meeting is akin to Watergate. Power~enwiki ( talk) 05:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete It's kinda sad to see WP editors falling into the pit of MSM mania instead of working to protect the integrity of the project. The 7-day moratorium that was proposed here would, in my opinion, be as much benefit to us as WP:ACTRIAL will be. Lorty, they're creating articles for all the "non-notables" who attended that nothing burger meeting. Atsme 📞 📧 17:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and/or redirect to Trump campaign–Russian meeting per WP:BIO1E. Readers on that topic are no doubt likely to be curious who he is but our article provides no independent notability. — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment There are a heap of comments on Rob Goldstone:talk page, all in favor of Keeping Rhadow ( talk) 01:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as per above: Goldstone is likely to a short-lived news event. Nonetheless, in the saga of the 45th presidency, he has the potential to be a key player. Has encyclopedic relevance & something the readers would expect a stand-alone article on. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:44, 20 July 2017 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rob_Goldstone&oldid=1078521580"