Contents

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ira Brad Matetsky

Ira Brad Matetsky[edit]

Ira Brad Matetsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Subject fails WP:GNG. Most of the cited sources are mere mentions. The single story in Princeton Alumni Weekly isn't enough for general notability. The WSJ piece does not appear independent of the subject, as they interviewed him. (WSJ is focused on ARBCOM, not Newyorkbrad.) Regardless, defining-down GNG makes no sense. Whatever editing work the subject did in connection to Rex Stout does not pass WP:PROF as Matetsky is not a professor. Coverage like martindale.com might be acceptable per WP:V but is really WP:ROUTINE, indicating the subject is non-notable per WP:MILL. That a few journalists used Matetsky to spout two-sentence opinions in their rags does not a "legal expert" make. He's a contributor, at best. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that "independent of the subject" is defined as "a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective," which does make the WSJ independent for the purposes of this article. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:56, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For ArbCom, yes. Not necessarily for individual arbitrators who were interviewed. Their quotes about themselves or about ArbCom are not independent coverage. If the piece goes into more detail about Ira such that it meets the other parts of the GNG after the interview bits, then yes, but merely being quoted and having filler text does not meet it (I can’t access the article anymore so I can’t say either way, but I thought the distinction was important.) TonyBallioni (talk) 04:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: People w/o WSJ subscriptions (myself included) can still read the entire source for free thanks to the Wayback Machine: [1] Every morning (there's a halo...) 04:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: The Wall Street Journal is an independent source because it's independent of the subject. See the full quote from Wikipedia:Identifying and using independent sources: "An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective. Independent sources have editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (there is no potential for personal, financial, or political gain to be made from the existence of the publication). ... Interest in a topic becomes vested when the source (the author, the publisher, etc.) develops any financial or legal relationship to the topic." As far as I'm aware, a source does not become un-independent simply because it interviewed the subject of the article. Could you point to the policy or guideline that you're basing your view on? (I'm not trying to patronize you; I'm genuinely curious if this is something I've previously completely missed.) Thank you! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N: should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. and "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. Quotes about oneself are primary and non-independent and we never count interviews or quotes as counting towards notability. If there is an article about a person and there are limited quotes from them in it we count it, but simply being quoted or interviewed has no bearing at all on notability. Also, just to clarify for people who aren't aware, Wikipedia:Identifying and using independent sources is an essay. I don't have an opinion on Ira's notability, but simply being quoted or interviewed is neither independent or secondary. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:51, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't count quotes and interviews as secondary in the sense of the substance of what the interview or quote says, because the source doesn't vouch that what the quote says is true. But we certainly count interviews towards notability - the fact that the Wall Street Journal or Washington Post devotes a lot of column space to quotes certainly mean they consider the interviewee "worthy of notice", and "considered to be of a high degree of interest, significance, or distinction". --GRuban (talk) 02:37, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't. If there is commentary on the interview itself that is secondary we do (and for high profile interviews in WaPo, the NYT, 60 Minutes, etc. they are almost always indicators that a person was already notable before it), but interviews/columns/quotes are primary sources that don't count one iota towards notability on their own. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:46, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: I'm still not on board with what you're arguing here. ""Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent. <- that does not indicate that the WSJ wouldn't be "independent" here. It's fine to argue that the WSJ article isn't "significant coverage" and therefore doesn't come into play for notability—I'd completely agree with that. But it's definitely an independent source. (Also, note that the "identifying and using independent sources" essay is linked from WP:GNG.) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The ed17 interviews are not intellectually independent of the subject. Even if there is editorial oversight, we require that what is actually published not be from the subject themselves. This is why an interview on NPR does not establish notability: it is not independent even if the publisher of the interview is (you could also argue it is primary and fails the sourcing requirements on two grounds.) My argument is not that the WSJ source is not independent: it definitely is. It is that the quotes from him about ArbCom/what he does are not and would not establish notability on their own, even if they were substantial.

The question we ask is if there has been coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. Interviews and quotes are not in themselves either secondary or independent of the subject. What is independent and secondary is any coverage or commentary that the WSJ may have after interviewing the subject. If that exists, then arguably meets the independence test, but the WSJ just deciding to quote someone is not an indicator of notability on any of the criteria the GNG establishes. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:33, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:09, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I think Brad is swell. I also think that in the long run this page is more apt to be a curse than a blessing for him. Notability in WP terms is borderline; I seriously doubt (to the third power) that this page would have been created if Brad were not a Wikipedia Person™, ergo tipping the scales for me to deletion at this time. I feel sure that eventually there will be a page for this subject; this, however, is not that moment. Carrite (talk) 22:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'm the article subject. As I said on my talkpage before the article was created, I'm not taking a position on whether I'm notable or not in Wikipedia terms. As I think about it, I can't think of any one specific thing that would make me notable, but at some point a confluence of smaller things might add up. From a more meta point of view, I understand both the "Wikipedia shouldn't aggrandize Wikipedians" (or "less navel-gazing") argument and the "Wikipedians should eat their own dog food" (or "you should suffer with the rest of the BLP subjects") argument. So "enough with me talking about me, why don't you folks talk about me," and we'll see what happens. I don't plan to participate further in the discussion, unless a factual error comes up that I feel bound to correct. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete We need to avoid navel gazing in Wikipedia. Beyond that nothing comes even close to showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As a New York-based Wikipedian, I have seen Ira Matetsky and heard him speak, but have never exchanged any words or other communication with him. Thus, on a completely impersonal basis and without resorting to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it should be noted that most Wikipedia biographical entries are not sourced with 17 inline cites from such references as The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. There is nothing inappropriate with occasional navel-gazing since, after all, we are the center of our own universe and a legal celebrity in our midst, volunteering and devoting years of his time and energy to the project so near and dear to all of us should receive his just due on the pages of the project. Ira Matetsky did not encourage the creation of his biographical entry, but once it came into existence, it would be most appropriate and fair-minded for it to remain, if only for the benefit of Wikipedia users and advancement of knowledge. There is no advantage to be gained through its deletion, but its potential disappearance would be a loss for Wikipedians.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:46, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Roman Spinner: "...devoting years of his time and energy to the project so near and dear to all of us should receive his just due on the pages of the project." This is not what WP:N says. Deletion is a course of action here because we have notability rules and they apply equally to all articles. We don't play favorites. You have no evidence that Wikipedia benefits from keeping this article, especially against the backdrop of a universal criterion like GNG. You also cannot make any claim to being fair-minded when you advocate uneven application of subjective whims. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Roman Spinner: I have to say, even though I am the creator of this article and am thus inclined to think it meets the notability guidelines, Chris Troutman is right: the argument that any WP editor should be "rewarded" for their hard work with an article about them in mainspace is ridiculous. If this article is to be kept, it must be based on notability guidelines, none of which say anything about giving any editors their "just due" with an article about them. Every morning (there's a halo...) 03:55, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete-Per nom and Carrite.~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. He's a lawyer who runs multiple legal magazines, and is cited as a legal expert by some of the most influential news media in the United States; and, lest we not forget, one of the most powerful people on the number 5 web site in the world. We should not be navel gazing, but neither should we have false modesty here, we are not John Smith's Blog. The combination qualifies for notability. --GRuban (talk) 14:06, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  "legal expert" is, in fact, the way the Washington Post and Vanity Fair referred to him in citing him.[2][3] --GRuban (talk) 14:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- Per nom; a lack of in-depth direct coverage. Also, notability is not inherited. EnPassant (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No in-depth direct coverage, except the Princeton article. Not notable, at least yet. talk to !dave 19:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - a couple of points to give some context (disclosure: I know the article subject and have worked with him on Wikipedia).

• It is hard to work out from what links here whether the existing links to this article from other articles are just from being included in the 'Wikipedia' navigation template or whether the links from within the actual text of those articles. My suspicion, based on looking at the list of 'what links here' and the 95 or so articles in {{Wikipedia}} and from searching for the subject's name in Wikipedia, is that all the links except one are generated by the template. Only one link is a genuine one, and that is from the surname set index page Matetsky that was created by the editor who created this article (and which will need to be deleted if this article is not kept). It seems that the article creator (Everymorning (talk · contribs)) created the 'Ira Matetsky' article as an orphan (i.e. with no existing links and no 'demand' for the article to be created in terms of existing red-links). The article in question appears to be part of a walled garden of articles on individual Wikipedians that (mostly) don't really link out to the rest of the encyclopedia (these articles function more as footnotes containing subsidiary information on the 'Wikipedia' topic), though even there the subject of this article is not currently mentioned in the Arbitration Committee article (the most logical place for a mention, though that article, probably correctly, doesn't name or link to individual arbitrators).
• Looking further afield, there are a total of four Wikipedia articles where the article subject is currently named and could be linked: In-chambers opinion, John Marshall Harlan, Fer-de-Lance (novel) and Morrison Waite. In all four cases, the article subject is named as an author or editor in the references, and in all cases (note the COI disclosure) the article subject added these references himself (in chronological order: [4], [5], [6], [7]).

Overall then, the article subject is hardly mentioned on Wikipedia. The only people finding and reading the article will be those Googling the article subject, those browsing the Wikipedia template, and those who might follow author/editor links from article references. And looking through the article, it is hard to see where the article subject will get mentioned in other Wikipedia articles. This may say something about the notability of the article subject. I'm not going to give my view on that, other than to say that it can be hard for Wikipedians to objectively judge the notability of other Wikipedians. In that vein, some articles on Wikipedians do end up deleted or redirected, see: 1 (Michael Snow), 2 (Kat Walsh). Carcharoth (talk) 21:45, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The subject has many strings to his bow and, when aggregated, this gives us plenty to write about. He therefore passes WP:BASIC. Andrew D. (talk) 22:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The statement above we never count interviews or quotes as counting towards notability is fine as a personal opinion but is not adequate as a fair summary of thoughtful consensus on the matter. See WP:INTERVIEW and, perhaps more importantly, WT:INTERVIEW. I can see why there is a difference of opinion and I'll go with "keep". Thincat (talk) 19:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Princeton, WSJ, legal expert ... what's the issue here? Just because his notability concerns Wikipedia? ☆ Bri (talk) 19:08, 25 June 2018 (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.