Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Malament
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 of the debate was speedily deleted - the authors conducted a linkspam campaign in several articles, which leads me to believe this is a bad-faith piece of junk that should go speedily. FCYTravis 01:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Matt Malament[edit]
I originally tagged this as CSD A7, but there is an assertion of notability so I'm moving it to AFD. The article's assertions of notability are unreferenced and unverifiable by Google. --Muchness 23:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I am a colleague of Matt's. While he isn't as well known as say a Michael Porter, he is deinfitely a leading strategic thinker. He's fairly humble, so he won't jump into this fray, but I think to delete his page would be a black mark on Wikipedia. 00:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC) S. Wootton — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.14.172 (talk • contribs)
Weak keep/delete if not cleaned up- Someone with more information might be able to comment on whether winning the "It's Academic Super Bowl" is more than a local phenomenon. If it is, I guess that's weak grounds for notability. However, the rest is entirely unencyclopedic (captained the varsity football team? Yeah, him and 100,000 other people) or unverified puffery - "foremost strategic thinkers for Fortune 500," yadda yadda - so if that can't be verified by reliable sources, then delete as non-notable. FCYTravis 00:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Comment You may think it is a local phenomenon, but in fact it is a national tournament that is known by high school teachers coast-to-coast, and the longest running tv quiz show in the world, according to guinness records. I'd say there are much less-notable events currently on Wikipedia.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.202.106.114 (talk • contribs) .
- Comment - The "famed Domus Sphere" gets all of zero, count them zero Google hits. This may be a hoax, in which case I vote speedy delete. FCYTravis 00:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Probably b/c if you Google "famed Domus Sphere" in quotes. No one refers to it in general as the "famed Domus Sphere".
- OK, a search on just-plain "Domus Sphere" gets all of zero, count them zero Google hits. (I'm surprised Google hasn't indexed this discussion yet...) Dpbsmith (talk) 02:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Probably b/c if you Google "famed Domus Sphere" in quotes. No one refers to it in general as the "famed Domus Sphere".
- Changing my vote to speedy delete as vanity - I'd expect a "leading strategic thinker" to get some Google hits that aren't related to his high school. There are none. FCYTravis 00:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No hits in Google Books. No hits in Google Scholar. "One of the foremost thinkers in the field of strategic planning and vision" really should get at least a mention in there, at least in a note or reference. P. S. "Domus sphere" also gets no hits in either Google Books or Google Schola. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Probable hoax. Googling the allegedly famed "Domus Sphere" produces exactly no results. - Jaysus Chris 02:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Six Google hits for "Matt Malament" and not all him suggests we are being a bit hasty in assuming any notability. Denni ☯ 02:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete NN/vanity. While wishing him well in his career, unless and until that career generates substantial notice from within or without his field, this ought to remain unmentioned along with the thousands of other management guru hopefuls. The NYSE will probably withstand the omission.--cjllw | TALK 03:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per cjllw. Stifle 11:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I was trying to see whether anything in the article was verifiable. Rather to my surprise, a search in www.anywho.com and www.switchboard.com for anyone with the surname "Malament" in the entire State of Georgia yields no hits. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Ever heard of an unlisted address?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.202.106.114 (talk • contribs) .
- Comment 65.202.106.114, do not attempt to edit this page in any way that would distort the general content of the discussion. It is considered very rude to edit anyone else's comments. If you are the same person as User:Dmmx3 and find that the discussion is becoming embarrasing or unpleasant, then log in here as Dmmx3, say so, and request that the article be deleted and the discussion terminated early. Our due process requires that the discussion must stay open for at least five days, but in this case and given the obvious consensus to delete, I'd honor a request by Dmmx3 for speedy deletion if nobody objects. It's not nice to insert bogus articles into Wikipedia but it's not a big deal, it happens a lot. You pulled a dumb stunt, you got caught, it happens. We'd still welcome any serious contributions to WIkipedia you feel like making Dpbsmith (talk) 14:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How has no one else heard of this guy? Or the Dome Sphere? What, is Google the be-all-end-all of well-known people? Get out and read a book, then maybe you'll knwo who this guy is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.202.106.114 (talk • contribs) .
- If you cite a book (title, author, ISBN number) that provides verifiable evidence of the facts mentioned in the article not only will I read it, but if it confirms Matt Malament's notability I will change my vote to "keep." Dpbsmith (talk) 21:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Introduction to Decision Analysis by David C. Skinner. ISBN 0-9647938-3. Check out the chapter on using simulation to solve decision problems.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.202.106.114 (talk • contribs) .
- Unless the've changed something ISBNs consist of 10 digits, that one only has 9. --pgk(talk) 22:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The ISBN for the cited book is ISBN 0964793830 --Muchness 22:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - There's no entry for "Malament, Matt" or "Domus sphere" in the book's index. --Muchness 22:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Try reading the book. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.202.106.114 (talk • contribs) .
- Unless the've changed something ISBNs consist of 10 digits, that one only has 9. --pgk(talk) 22:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Introduction to Decision Analysis by David C. Skinner. ISBN 0-9647938-3. Check out the chapter on using simulation to solve decision problems.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.202.106.114 (talk • contribs) .
- If you cite a book (title, author, ISBN number) that provides verifiable evidence of the facts mentioned in the article not only will I read it, but if it confirms Matt Malament's notability I will change my vote to "keep." Dpbsmith (talk) 21:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Dpbsmith is a huge tool who has nothing better to do but edit wikipedia conversations as some weird pseudo power trip - virtual might I add and nothing more —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.4.181.210 (talk • contribs) .
- Delete, as per nom. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- DO NOT DELETE i dont understand why everyone wants to delete this. mr malament may not be albert einstein, but his contributions to biz strategy are fairly widely recognized, and is a giant in the field among his peers. everything in the article checks out, is completely factually accurate. this is more than worthwhile. also, the ultimate championship of the longest running quiz show is pretty significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmmx3 (talk • contribs) 27 January 2006
- Well, help us verify that everything in the article checks out. The big problem is that the article presently cites no sources at all. WP:V specifically says that the burden is on the contributor to provide those citations. We try to do due diligence to make sure we don't overlook the obvious, but it's not our job to provide verification, it's the job of the article contributors. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It's quite evident that Matt and Daniel M. Maggin (also up for deletion, and more than likely one and the same as User Dmmx3 (talk · contribs) to judge by the contribs) are simply a couple of mates having a go. I don't actually doubt the veracity of the biographical details provided for either; but when stripped of the unsupportable grandiose claims, they don't amount to encyclopaedic notability or even notoriety any which way you slice it. If truly a "giant in the field" other than in his own lunchtime, there would be commentary and recognition of the same from a variety of independent notable sources — but these are completey lacking. Being an employee of, or a consultant to, Fortune500 companies is not an automatic qualifier for mention here.--cjllw | TALK 03:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I agree. Further, 69.180.14.172 has defended both articles against deletion, but signed different names ("S. Wootton" here, "Dean Kang" there). Strikes me as suspicious. Hbackman 03:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It's quite evident that Matt and Daniel M. Maggin (also up for deletion, and more than likely one and the same as User Dmmx3 (talk · contribs) to judge by the contribs) are simply a couple of mates having a go. I don't actually doubt the veracity of the biographical details provided for either; but when stripped of the unsupportable grandiose claims, they don't amount to encyclopaedic notability or even notoriety any which way you slice it. If truly a "giant in the field" other than in his own lunchtime, there would be commentary and recognition of the same from a variety of independent notable sources — but these are completey lacking. Being an employee of, or a consultant to, Fortune500 companies is not an automatic qualifier for mention here.--cjllw | TALK 03:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, help us verify that everything in the article checks out. The big problem is that the article presently cites no sources at all. WP:V specifically says that the burden is on the contributor to provide those citations. We try to do due diligence to make sure we don't overlook the obvious, but it's not our job to provide verification, it's the job of the article contributors. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:29, 27 January 2006 (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.