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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:32, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

J. Jaye Gold[edit]

J. Jaye Gold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Promotional BLP of a spiritual teacher who uses indirect methods to facilitate the removal of obstacles to the innate goodness in every human. Sourced to his own works and other unreliable sources. Mccapra (talk) 13:08, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:08, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:08, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Obviously self-promotional piece, fails WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:15, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Majority of refs are to works by the subject. David notMD (talk) 22:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Alter? Contributor here. To clarify if I may, I am not "prompted," "fed," or promoting. The subject, who is interested neither in finding students nor anyone's money, is not self-promoting. This should be clear from the article. [Do the words “spiritual teacher” lead to this assumption?] Can anyone help me consider what perhaps to delete to save the article? The secondary sources are mainly interviews, and the website of the nonprofit org. that Gold founded. Are these all considered unreliable? Should I have the interviews transcribed in order to better cite them as secondary source material? Yes, I’ve read all the articles and guidelines. Don't know where to post this...Pls. delete these comments if this is not the place for them and direct me elsewhere -- unless it's a done deal. Thank you for your thoughts / assistance. Onganymede (talk) 00:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, what we need to demonstrate notability of a subject is multiple references to reliable independent sources. These can be newspapers, books etc. But they must be by independent third parties. Mccapra (talk) 05:36, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Onganymede, the independent sources you need exclude anything by Gold or from his website or from ccns-inc.org or interviews of Gold—in other words none of the sources you are now using is useful. —teb728 t c 12:27, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteDraftify - Promotion for socially desirable purposes is still promotion. Wikipedia serves its own social purpose of compiling human knowledge and does not serve other non-profits. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• DRAFTIFY:
  We're biting a new editor here, folks. Don't delete their hard work, it's not a self-promo piece, move it to draft. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 03:29, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are there reliable independent sources suggesting that there is a valid topic here which could be rewritten? If not, there is no point in draftifying because the article can’t be developed.Mccapra (talk) 07:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment: Although I stated Delete earlier, the creator is changing the draft to address criticism primarily having to do with now knowing to not reference Gold for this article about Gold. I agree with Draftify to allow time to work on it. David notMD (talk) 11:35, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Message received and research done. I've learned alot and found alot. Please take a look and advise. (Not sure of protocol for this page so, winging it with "comment." Thank you.Onganymede (talk) 03:24, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969: @David notMD: @Robert McClenon: in the light of the complete rewrite by @Onganymede: what is your view now? The sourcing is now entirely different. These may be WP:RIS and the article subject may now be a WP:GNG pass. Mccapra (talk) 04:00, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - At this point I am not prepared to change my !vote to Keep. It doesn't look like it satisfies WP:GNG as currently written. I will change my statement above to Draftify. I would suggest that the originator further rework to focus on author notability rather than general. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:48, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Torn between draftify and delete. The refs are still remarkably weak. Four to blogs at medium.com, and some formatted so that the link is to the publication but not the article that was about Gold. David notMD (talk) 05:28, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a clearly non-notable individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have redone most of the original article and have, I believe, addressed EveryThing suggested/required. I welcome your final comments. I ask that before any next Delete comment, the editor/s be so kind as to look at least briefly at the Projects page of the nonprofit, ccns-inc.org/service-projects/ (preferably not on a smart phone). I understand the site cannot be referenced for the article's subject, but notability is not always documented in web-linked articles. If Wikipedia insists it be, so be it. Thanks for your comments and help in this process. Onganymede (talk) 00:30, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have looked at the page 'Onganymede' linked for a moment. I still don't think this article complies with the WP:GNG. Xelygon (talk) 16:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the article creator has done a tremendous amount of work to improve it, and to support the new version with third party sources. It’s an enormous improvement. I’m still not sure if the subject is notable, but if not it’s a much nearer miss than it was a week ago. I’d suggest relisting to allow time for wider consensus, given the amount that has been changed. Mccapra (talk) 18:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Article creator has removed the blog refs and added other refs. David notMD (talk) 22:57, 7 Njovember 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I concur with relisting. McClenon mobile (talk) 02:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Congratulations to the author on improving the article, but still as far as far as I can see Gold is an unremarkable author and an unremarkable spiritual teacher. He is not significant enough for an article in an encyclopedia. Although CCNS may be a worthy organization, founding it does not make Gold notable by Wikipedia standards. —teb728 t c 04:31, 8 November 2020 (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.