Talk:David P. Goldman/Archive 1

Archive 1

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 72.192.242.6 (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.[1][2] 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)

Notability

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)

Looking him up I think he is less notable than I expected. I'd heard of him, but I read "First Things" on occasion. I might just put the prod back.--T. Anthony (talk) 08:28, 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 99.142.9.47 (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.99.141.251.127 (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)

He does apparently make frequent appearances on The Kudlow Report (though I never watch the show, so I cannot verify it). Is being a CNBC talking head notable? --Sephiroth9611 (talk) 03:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Notable?

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:

http://www.risk.net/credit/profile/1519001/the68.173.0.162 (talk) 22:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

Overhaul

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)

I stubbed it instead. If anyone wants to go through the sources and create a properly cited article then that'd be great. But the last version was an almost-sourceless autobiography,[3] and the prior version wasn't ideal either.[4] Please do not revert.   Will Beback  talk  09:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)