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. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Goguen[edit]

Michael Goguen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Article was created to promote tabloid coverage of living person lawsuits. Non notable other than his legal and tabloid issues. Gentry862 (talk) 19:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• There is plenty of non-tabloid coverage CNBC, TechCrunch, Yahoo News. Alaexis_¿question? 19:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those articles are still about his salacious lawsuits and legal issues. Maybe this is more WP:CRIME issue for if all he is known for is his legal issues I do not think notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Gentry862 (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see any restrictions on the nature of coverage in WP:BASIC as long as the said coverage is significant. Alaexis_¿question? 10:47, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Billionaire involved in some scandals, clearly meeting GNG. Clear up BLP issues separately. LondonIP (talk) 19:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 20:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 20:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 20:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While there are definitely improvements that could be made to the article, this guy is definitely notable. Remember, WP:SIGCOV has nothing to do with what you personally find significant, but rather what reliable sources cover in a non-trivial manner. Yitz (talk) 21:35, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:57, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This guy is notable because he is, objectively, one of the most successful Venture Capitalists, ever. During his time as Partner at Sequoia Capital 1996-2016, he sponsored 54 investments with a combined market value of over $64B. Zulu roger (talk) 09:32, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Certainly seems to be enough RS to support GNG. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. So if a billionaire is involved in lawsuits he becomes less notable? This logic eludes me. Passes the WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 02:06, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This article puts waaaay too much weight on sexual abuse allegations, this guy isn't a public figure—although he is popular in the tabl-oids, I'll grant that. However, there does seem to be enough coverage in reliable sources outside of all that to give a gng pass anyway. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 07:48, 15 December 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.