Talk:Ron Goldman/Archives/2020

Does he deserve an article in Wikipedia?

Just because he was a friend of Ron Goldman former wife? Was he a notable scientist, artist, politician etc? No. He was a restaurant waiter. Period. 85.193.247.94 (talk) 16:22, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion (i.e. having an article on Wikipedia) is not about "deserving". It does not hinge on whether or not the subject is famous, important, or popular. It simply means the subject "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". WP:N

In the present case, Goldman has been the subject of substantial nationwide coverage in major magazines and newspapers. That is notability. - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:09, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

@User:SummerPhDv2.0 Basically, you are right, but in my opinion, ​a separate article is a gross exaggeration. Besides, is the "early life" section absolutely necessary? It reads like tabloid journalism. Who cares where and when some waiter was born?

PS. You used the phrasal verb "hinge on", which I had a problem with. The word "depend on" would be much easier :-) 85.193.247.94 (talk) 01:16, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like you are suggesting deletion. If I'm mistaken, you're welcome to take it to Articles for Deletion. I expect outright deletion is very unlikely.

If you feel it shouldn't be a separate article, you can suggest a merge (probably a selective merge), though I'm not sure what the target article would be without it being rather awkward and/or inviting the argument that the material from here would overwhelm the target article.

If you feel there is too much material here, you have a few different approaches to consider. You can certainly look through for anything that is unsourced for removal. As for anything you feel is "unnecessary", you can either make some changes and start discussions or make more specific suggestions here. You can expect strong opposition to removal of basic biographical info (e.g., birth date and location) if it's in a reliable source.

Good luck. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Maybe this article should be named "Murder of Ron Goldman", as opposed to "Ron Goldman". He is really only notable for his death/murder ... and not for his life, prior to that. So, the article should be about his death/murder and not a biography of Goldman. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:13, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

While I think I understand your reasoning here, that formulation is typically used when the event is notable but the person is not.

A few problems:

1) I'd think it would be "Murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman" as I'm not really seeing sources discussing one without the other.

2) Goldman does meet GNG as he is clearly the subject of non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources.

3) Goldman does not fail WP:BLP1E or WP:BIO1E. John Hinckley Jr. and a litany of other high profile criminals come to mind. Hinckley certainly wasn't notable before the crime, but we certainly have separate articles on Hinckley, Reagan and the attempted murder.

4) The article O. J. Simpson murder case seems to pretty much encompass the murders, replacing an article for the murders independent of any of the individuals. Would we merge Ron Goldman there without the same for Nicole Brown Simpson? - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@SummerPhDv2.0: Thanks for the thoughtful and thorough reply. Yes, those are some significant "bumps" in renaming this article. He may have extensive notability in sources, but only due to his death/murder. There is not much (is there any?) coverage of him, outside of the topic of his murder. I really don't think he's notable, outside of his death/murder. But, I do see the four obstacles that you cited above. In the end, I guess that I am fine with leaving the article as is. Yet, ambivalent. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:46, 6 January 2020 (UTC)