Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mitchell Waldman (2nd nomination)
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 was delete. T. Canens (talk) 03:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mitchell Waldman[edit]
AfDs for this article:
- Mitchell Waldman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not only is this a clear vanity page - the author is obviously not notable and the page contains no secondary sources - it's been successfully nominated for deletion before and re-created! Delete. --Roscelese
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Roscelese (talk) 21:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional text and references were added with regard to the writer's legal writings and citations thereof. Waldman is a widely published writer of fiction, poetry, and essays, in small presses online and in print,over twenty publications this year alone, as is clear from the references in the Mitchell Waldman article. (Some of his publications have also been verified by Poets and Writers organization as part of their process in adding his writer's listing to their directory -- http://www.pw.org/content/mitchell_waldman). I suggest that based on such references, he is a notable writer. As to his novel, the reviews alone support its merit and notability. There were other reviews which are no longer available on the Internet, unfortunately. While a prior page of the same name was previously deleted, Waldman's publications have increased greatly since that prior deletion. Thus, I propose that the page be retained. LitReviewer2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- I don't think you understand - imagine what the article would look like after removing all the stuff with no secondary source, and ask yourself if the notability guidelines support the existence of a page for a guy just because he's listed on a website and wrote two articles. If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention to support a claim of notability. Roscelese (talk) 12:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note also that LitReviewer2 is the article creator, and either the subject himself or a close friend of the subject. Roscelese (talk) 13:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what the problem is. The writer's work has appeared in numerous literary journals online. (Are these not independent sources indicating notability?) The addition of five sources where his legal articles have been cited as authority are significant. (Are these not secondary sources, either?) LitReviewer2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- No, dude, the magazine that published your work is not a secondary source as to its notability. As I said, I'll grant that the legal citations are third-party, but I don't think there needs to be a Wikipedia page for every guy who wrote two legal articles. Roscelese (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what the problem is. The writer's work has appeared in numerous literary journals online. (Are these not independent sources indicating notability?) The addition of five sources where his legal articles have been cited as authority are significant. (Are these not secondary sources, either?) LitReviewer2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Sounds like somebody has an axe to grind. "The magazine"? -- there was more than one magazine publishing the writer's work, quite a few actually. And he has written many more than two legal articles. Two were cited as examples. LitReviewer2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- I found this article because I was searching on a particular grammar error that you made in writing it, Mr. Special Snowflake Writer, and I nominated it for deletion because (unlike films, sports) it is a category in which I feel I am qualified to judge notability. Please provide evidence of your notability from reliable secondary sources. Roscelese (talk) 19:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (In case you have an allergy to the notability guidelines, I'll quote for you from the link: "Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.") Roscelese (talk) 20:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds like somebody has an axe to grind. "The magazine"? -- there was more than one magazine publishing the writer's work, quite a few actually. And he has written many more than two legal articles. Two were cited as examples. LitReviewer2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- I'm not really enjoying the editor's tone in these comments. She should be aware that comments like these are available to the public and may, in some instances, be considered libelous. In any case, the editor's tone aside, I have expanded the section on the writer's legal writings and other sources referring to such writings. Hopefully this will suffice to satisfy the notability issues. If not, more references can be added. LitReviewer2 (talk) 00:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)--LitReviewer2 (talk) 00:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- loooooooool "this person is not notable" = libel Roscelese (talk) 00:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Would be nice if you could remain WP:CIVIL about it please. Bigger digger (talk) 01:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I rather think that "I could sue you for libel" is much less civil than "that's ridiculous"...but enough of this tangent. Roscelese (talk) 01:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I made no legal threats, nor am I being uncivil. I am just saying these comments are starting to sound very personal and can affect the writer's reputation (what is "Mr. Special Snowflake Writer"? Is that kind of language really called for in objective criticism?) You have to admit that the Notability standards are very vague and subjective. Citation in court opinions and legal documents to the writer's papers do not seem unnotable. LitReviewer2 (talk) 01:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I rather think that "I could sue you for libel" is much less civil than "that's ridiculous"...but enough of this tangent. Roscelese (talk) 01:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Would be nice if you could remain WP:CIVIL about it please. Bigger digger (talk) 01:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- loooooooool "this person is not notable" = libel Roscelese (talk) 00:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not really enjoying the editor's tone in these comments. She should be aware that comments like these are available to the public and may, in some instances, be considered libelous. In any case, the editor's tone aside, I have expanded the section on the writer's legal writings and other sources referring to such writings. Hopefully this will suffice to satisfy the notability issues. If not, more references can be added. LitReviewer2 (talk) 00:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)--LitReviewer2 (talk) 00:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - A successful start to an AfD, loads of words but no !votes and an unsigned nomination! No sources show WP:Notability is indicated in WP:Reliable sources. LitReviewer2, if you could please show just 2 reliable sources that show how this author passes WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR (and I suggest you read those), then I can consider changing my !vote. I don't have time to look at all 58 refs, but my random sampling include copies of his stories, lots of "articles" that mention his contribution to anthologies, and 200-page pdfs that mention his name once. And post edit conflict, please carefully read WP:LEGAL.Bigger digger (talk) 00:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And actually, you should be able to show WP:AUTH #1 if he is cited in legal papers - is there a report or paper that analyses what he wrote and how useful it is? At the moment I don't know if all those refs you've tagged on the end of one sentence should be impressive or not. Bigger digger (talk) 01:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep-- The writer's legal articles on Computers and the Internet and on Expectation of Privacy in Internet Communications are unique articles gathering and analyzing applicable collections of legal case law and statutes pertaining to these subjects; thus their citation in many other legal articles and court opinions shows their significance as original legal documents. This alone, along with the writer's other original fiction, poetry, and essays, which have been widely published and positively reviewed, and his editorial work, would indicate his notability as a writer and editor of creative as well as legal works. --LitReviewer2 (talk) 01:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Sources to not meet the notability guidelines. - MrOllie (talk) 14:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Quoting from Roscelese:"The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention to support a claim of notability.", I'm not certain why adding 28 legal references (including court opinions) referring to the writer's work is not considered as meeting the requirement that "there must be verifiable objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention to support a claim of notability." --LitReviewer2 (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As was stated above, Trivial coverage (mere mentions of someone's name or citations to a paper) do not help to establish notability. Do you have any independently written sources that provide biographical information? - MrOllie (talk) 18:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I see nothing in the Notability guidelines about the number of sources as making a topic significant despite the so-called "trivial" nature of such references. It would seem that the sheer number of references to a topic or article would, at some point, make the coverage "significant" and notable, given the amount of attention that is being bestowed on the subject, especially with regard to legal material cited by courts of law, law review articles and government sources, which is the case with the references made to the writer's work here. Such references acknowledge the writer's work in both federal and state documents, legal research, and court opinions (a big step for "significance," in the legal world). Maybe this is not the norm with regard to normal articles, but perhaps it is a little different with legal works. --173.85.166.41 (talk) 11:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As was stated above, Trivial coverage (mere mentions of someone's name or citations to a paper) do not help to establish notability. Do you have any independently written sources that provide biographical information? - MrOllie (talk) 18:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Although the article provides more than 70 references, they do not confirm notability. The quoted reviews of the novel are all from blogs and such, not from WP:Reliable Sources. A search for mainstream articles about the author or his novel finds nothing. A search for the publisher of the novel, Writers Club Press, oddly does not find a publishers website; instead, the primary Google hit for this search is the self-publishing company iUniverse, suggesting that his novel may be self-published. For all these reasons, he fails to meet the standards set at WP:AUTHOR. Writing legal articles would promote notability only under the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC, which do not seem to apply to this person. --MelanieN (talk) 13:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So if you write legal articles but you're not an "academic" you can't be notable? There's something wrong with this. Maybe you need a new rule, or some sort of exceptions. In any case the rote application of "Rules" seems to have taken all reasonableness of the applicators of such rules entirely out of this process. I understand you need to have SOME rules, but there needs to be some discretionary evaluation here involving sense and reason.I'm befuddled by the last comment. Apparently the legal sources thought the articles by the author referred to were notable or they would not have mentioned them. Courts and legal scholars don't just cite legal references for no reason. And what of all the subject's other creative writings, besides the "self-published" work? Granted they are not secondary sources, but they are evidence of his creative output which has been recognized by publication by the journals in which they have appeared. This machine-like application of rules really is amazing.--LitReviewer2 (talk) 12:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't have to be an "academic" as such to apply the standards of WP:ACADEMIC; that guideline is a way of evaluating people who may have made a significant contribution to their field, but have not gotten written about in WP:Reliable sources enough for the usual notability requirements. That guideline is to go to Google Scholar and look for articles written by the person, and see how often they have been cited by others. An occasional citation here and there isn't going to demonstrate a significant contribution to the field; we look for people who get cited MANY times. I evaluated Mr. Waldman - or let's face it, you - by that standard also, to give you a second chance at notability - to see if you might meet that standard even if you didn't meet WP:AUTHOR - but no. As for WP:AUTHOR guidelines, merely getting stuff published does not meet the notability guideline; the stuff you write has to be taken independent note of by reliable sources, particularly by published (as opposed to online) sources. Finally, the general consensus here is that self-published books are almost never accepted as a sign of notability. Please don't take the comments here as putting you down, or finding your work to be bad; that's not what it is about at all. This is about fulfilling Wikipedia's criteria as "notable" - which admittedly may sometime exclude a person who is a brilliant writer, or is well known in a given locality or field. Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia, and it has to have standards. And contrary to your statement above, the notability standard is not "very vague and subjective" - it is very specific and objective, namely, "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." All those terms are carefully defined at WP:NOTABILITY. --MelanieN (talk) 22:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Contrary to MelanieN's statement, the book reviews are not from "blogs" but, oddly from book review sites, eg, Bookreview.com, Jandy's Reading Room... Not sure where the "blogs and such" idea came from. --LitReviewer2 (talk) 12:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't have to be an "academic" as such to apply the standards of WP:ACADEMIC; that guideline is a way of evaluating people who may have made a significant contribution to their field, but have not gotten written about in WP:Reliable sources enough for the usual notability requirements. That guideline is to go to Google Scholar and look for articles written by the person, and see how often they have been cited by others. An occasional citation here and there isn't going to demonstrate a significant contribution to the field; we look for people who get cited MANY times. I evaluated Mr. Waldman - or let's face it, you - by that standard also, to give you a second chance at notability - to see if you might meet that standard even if you didn't meet WP:AUTHOR - but no. As for WP:AUTHOR guidelines, merely getting stuff published does not meet the notability guideline; the stuff you write has to be taken independent note of by reliable sources, particularly by published (as opposed to online) sources. Finally, the general consensus here is that self-published books are almost never accepted as a sign of notability. Please don't take the comments here as putting you down, or finding your work to be bad; that's not what it is about at all. This is about fulfilling Wikipedia's criteria as "notable" - which admittedly may sometime exclude a person who is a brilliant writer, or is well known in a given locality or field. Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia, and it has to have standards. And contrary to your statement above, the notability standard is not "very vague and subjective" - it is very specific and objective, namely, "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." All those terms are carefully defined at WP:NOTABILITY. --MelanieN (talk) 22:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - sources do not make notability, they confirm it, but the notability has to be there to begin with.. There is nothing I can see that suggests that the subject is a notable author.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kudpung (talk • contribs) 14:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC) [reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR. Textbook case of bombardment. Location (talk) 18:27, 20 September 2010 (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.