Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Windman

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Cirt (talk) 04:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Windman

edit
Matt Windman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Autobiographical article authored by completely un-noteworthy person. "Sources" at the bottom of the article appear to have little if anything to do with him personally. Soothing Vapors (talk) 08:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – meets the criteria as established at professionals where it states: “…The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors”. I believe Mr. Windman has more than met the requirement, as noted here [2]]. You will notice that he is cited by more than a few creditable – reliable – verifiable – and noteworthy publications. Thanks ShoesssS Talk 14:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • responce - Sorry for the delay. But let me try explaining my rational. And yes, I am repeating myself, as noted below. In my original Keep opinion, I expressed the view that I believed that Mr. Windman met the requirements of Notability as outlined under Creative professionals‘ where it states verbatim; “…The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors‘. An example is if an academic or journalist is notable under Creative professionals‘ his or her possible failure to meet other notability guidelines is irrelevant. In that vain I believe that Mr. Windman‘s prolific publications in Newsday - Baltimore Sun - New York Post and Chicago Tribune, just to name a few, as shown here [3]] fulfill the requirements as outlined in Creative professionals‘ in that if the publications are willing to use his opinion and publish it in print form, they are in fact citing Mr. Windman and depending on his opinion as an “Expert‘. Therefore, citing him as an expert by his peers fulfilling the requirements of Creative professionals‘ . Now that is a mouthful :-). ShoesssS Talk 03:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it looks like the entire autobiographical article was generated by the subject. The citations are largely irrelevant to the article. Footnotes 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 do not even mention the subject. SM1039 (talk) 14:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no sufficiently independent or significant sources to establish notability.--Boffob (talk) 15:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- fails WP:BIO; no significant coverage of the subject in secondary sources independent of him. Having his byline on a lot of articles means he writes a lot, not that he is written about. RayAYang (talk) 15:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Self-serving, base autobiography that is completely unsubstantiated by any other sources, of a completely non-notable individual. Wikipedia should not become a vanity press for small people with large egos. SlyFrog (talk) 17:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - autobiographical vanity article, non-notable subject, sources do not actually have anything to do with the article JMGK (talk) 18:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - vanity article, subject is completely irrelevant to everyone but the author, citations link to articles written by the subject and not about the subject. It's fairly obvious by any standard that the subject is not "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors”. Socrates2222 (talk) 20:2, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Vanity article with misleading citations to irrelevant sources. deathdrive (talk) 20:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uncertain I think he probably is notable, though I am not satisfied by the references. This really needs one more , not associated with him. The LA Times one might do, but I cant get it to work.It is well established that publication of essays by someone is not enough to make him notable, unless they are substantially quoted. or he can be shown to be considered notable. I am however a little puzzled by the animus expressed in quick sequence by several editors who have otherwise made almost no contributions at Wikipedia. DGG (talk) 22:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Nobody has cited his work and he's pretty clearly made this entry himself to stroke his ego. I think wikipedia deserves better.Socrates2222 (talk) 00:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - OK, let’s start at the basics here. In my original Keep opinion, I expressed the view that I believed that Mr. Windman met the requirements of Notability as outlined under Creative professionals‘ where it states verbatim; “…The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors‘. First, as a guideline it is not policy, in that it is not mandated that it be followed. It is more a reflection of the community consensus reached through discussions and reinforced by established practice, and informs decisions on whether an article on a person should be written, merged, deleted or further developed. With that said, the sub-headings under Notability are meant for individuals, under specialty areas, such as Creative professionals‘ - Academics – Films – Music and such who do not meet general notability standards but are notable in some other way under one of the other notability guidelines. Example is if an academic or journalist is notable under Creative professionals‘ his or her possible failure to meet other notability guidelines is irrelevant. In this vain I looked to what constitutes “…widely cited by their peers or successors”, as noted under Creative professionals‘ and enlisted the help of Merriam-Webster dictionary, regarded as an unbiased - reliable - verifiable and unbiased reference source for the meaning of “cited”. The definition is as follows:cit·ed; cit·ing Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French citer to cite, summon, from Latin citare to put in motion, rouse, summon, from frequentative of ciēre to stir, move — more at -kinesis Date: 15th century 1: to call upon officially or authoritatively to appear (as before a court)2: to quote by way of example, authority, or proof <cites several noteworthy authors>3 a: to refer to ; especially : to mention formally in commendation or praise b: to name in a citation[1]
Now I believe that Mr. Windman‘s prolific publications in Newsday - Baltimore Sun - GW Hatchet and Chicago Tribune, just to name a few, as shown here [4]] fulfill the requirements as outlined in Creative professionals‘. If they do not, please show me where I misinterpreted the guidelines and I will be more than happy to rethink my position. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 02:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The link you gave only underlines Mr. Windman's non-notability. Click the links. Newsday: page not found. Hartford Courant: redirects to a page that has nothing to do with Mr. Windman. Chicago Tribune: redirects to a page that has nothing to do with Mr. Windman. Even if the links did work, all it shows is that Mr. Windman has a handful of bylines, not that he is notable or that people are talking about him. Also, GW Hatchet is a student newspaper. Is Wikipedia really for biographies of student newspaper columnists? Soothing Vapors (talk) 03:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If Mr. Windman is notable for the number of reviews he had written, I would still be looking for third-party verifiable sources to confirm that fact. I've tried to find citations for Windman too, so I know how difficult it is, but the notability guidelines are pretty firm about this. Since we already have a reference section, I shall quote directly from WP:GNG: "Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.[2]" I applaud you for finding the meager secondary sources that you have, but they just aren't enough to indicate notability.--otherlleftNo, really, other way . . . 03:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Did you even bother to click any of those 364 "bylines" you list? On the first page you link to, the Newsday links are all dead, two articles are from a student newspaper, and the NY Daily News has this very authoritative reference to the notable Matt Windman:
"You don't know how awesome this is! I'm at the center of the world!" exclaimed Matt Windman, 12, of Marlboro, N.J., resplendent in his Yankees pinstripe jacket and World Series cap.
Perhaps this supports your position--after all, how could someone at the center of the world not be notable?Socrates2222 (talk) 16:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response - I thank you for the applause, it is appreciate. But to address your comment and question here, I believe I addressed those thoughts above. Possibly we had an edit conflict during posting. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 03:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - I did miss your restating of your rationale. I think the difference is that academic professionals are published in peer-reviewed journals, while a critic such as Matt Windman is simply being hired to write for newspapers. There isn't a standard of expertise such as one might find in mathematics or anthropology, and Windman can get his reviews in print even if every other critic on the planet thinks he doesn't know what he's talking about. That's why academics get what may appear to be a lower standard, but one which proves to be much more difficult to meet in the publish or perish world of academia. Theater critics just aren't in the same class, and so the standard notability criterion I have cited must be upheld.--otherlleftNo, really, other way . . . 04:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response - LOL differences of opinion. That I can respect, laid-out in logical format. But one more thrust at the “windmill”.[3][6]. In citing the guideline for Professionals You may have overlooked that it also includes a range of individuals . One of them being journalists. In that I consider Mr. Windman a professional journalist, I applied the standard as outlined in Professionals to Mr. Windman. ShoesssS Talk 04:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - I think the point of WP:CREATIVE that you refer to is "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors," as none of the other criteria appear to apply. The question is, are the two or three mentions of Windman's name that are referenced in the article sufficient to meet the standard of "widely cited by their peers?" For all the editors that have expressed an opinion of delete, I am confident that a closing administrator will keep this article if the answer to that question is "yes."--otherlleftNo, really, other way . . . 04:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Anyone who has ever cited a written work knows what it means, you don't need a dictionary (besides, despite two articles listing him as a "Tony Prediction Expert" and referencing his guess at who will win awards, he isn't "widely cited" for anything authoritative). Look at the notability guidelines--he fails the basic criteria and all of the additional criteria as well. Although I'm sure he's thrilled that ShoesssS is vehemently defending a self-composed article about a random second year law student who wrote a few articles for his student newspaper.Socrates2222 (talk) 16:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for the moment. I'm still not convinced by your arguments, Shoessss. The notability criterion you mention works very well for Rex Reed, a critic who is cited by his peers and whose own article has third party references. This isn't intended to be a "What about X?" argument as discussed under WP:WAX, it's just an example of how I think the standard should be applied. There are many professional writers whose work is widely distributed but who are not notable (including myself); therefore, I do not find myself swayed simply by proof that the man's work is published. On the other hand, the publications Windman is published in are notable, which certainly doesn't prove his notability in and of itself, but leads me to suspect that there are better references out there. In a nutshell: I haven't been convinced that we don't need third-party sources to establish notability in this case, but I believe that they are likely out there.--otherlleftNo, really, other way . . . 03:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I am definitely not convinced that the citations establish notability, and the whole thing really strikes me as an autobiographical vanity article.Realitycookie (talk) 21:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


References
edit
  1. ^ Merriam-Webster [1]
  2. ^ Self-promotion, autobiography, and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works should be someone else writing independently about the topic. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it. Otherwise, someone could give their own topic as much notability as they want by simply expounding on it outside of Wikipedia, which would defeat the purpose of the concept. Also, neutral sources should exist in order to guarantee a neutral article can be written — self-promotion is not neutral (obviously), and self-published sources often are biased if even unintentionally: see Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for discussion of neutrality concerns of such sources. Even non-promotional self-published sources, in the rare cases they may exist, are still not evidence of notability as they do not measure the attention a subject has received by the world at large.
  3. ^ An obscure pun to Don Quixote
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Matt_Windman&oldid=1074865444"