Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Mitchell Waldman (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:02, 15 September 2010 editBigger digger (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers3,366 edits Mitchell Waldman: r to Roscelese, please stay WP:CIVIL← Previous edit Revision as of 01:05, 15 September 2010 edit undoRoscelese (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers35,788 edits Mitchell WaldmanNext edit →
Line 22: Line 22:
:loooooooool "this person is not notable" = libel ] (]) 00:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC) :loooooooool "this person is not notable" = libel ] (]) 00:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
:::Would be nice if you could remain ] about it please. ] (]) 01:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC) :::Would be nice if you could remain ] about it please. ] (]) 01:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
:::I rather think that "I could sue you for libel" is much less civil than "that's ridiculous"...but enough of this tangent. ] (]) 01:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - A successful start to an AfD, loads of words but no !votes and an unsigned nomination! No sources show ] is indicated in ]. LitReviewer2, if you could please show just 2 ] that show how this author passes ] or ] (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 ].] (]) 00:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC) *'''Delete''' - A successful start to an AfD, loads of words but no !votes and an unsigned nomination! No sources show ] is indicated in ]. LitReviewer2, if you could please show just 2 ] that show how this author passes ] or ] (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 ].] (]) 00:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
::And actually, you should be able to show ] #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. ] (]) 01:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC) ::And actually, you should be able to show ] #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. ] (]) 01:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:05, 15 September 2010

Mitchell Waldman

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!

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).

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)
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)

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).

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 Misplaced Pages page for every guy who wrote two legal articles. Roscelese (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


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).

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)
(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)

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)

loooooooool "this person is not notable" = libel Roscelese (talk) 00:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Would be nice if you could remain WP:CIVIL about it please. Bigger digger (talk) 01:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
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)
  • 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)
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)
Categories: