Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin D. Weiss (2nd nomination)


 * 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. The consensus is that there is not enough sourcing/evidence to demonstrate that Weiss meets the notability criteria Phantom Steve /talk &#124;contribs \ 22:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Martin D. Weiss
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

The subject of the article fails general notability guidelines. The article is so poorly written as to require a complete re-write to comply with Wikipedia standards. And virtually every source cited is one of the subject's own web sites. Ithizar (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

 
 * keep meets WP:AUTHOR. (and also there is substantial coverage of  his ratings) Many sources available: just from the WSJ,  etc etc  DGG ( talk ) 18:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   05:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete - I tend to agree with the nominator. The article reads like it is trying to redress or rehabilitate the subject from various legal disputes, which may or may not have been widely noticed. Quite probably his books have sold well (in a specialist category, or generally?), but where is the proof of even one reliable review? The only saving grace would be the possibility of finding offline sources.
 * For some reason I forgot to sign this comment... Sionk (talk) 17:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Attempt to present subject's take on his SEC troubles, apparently by the subject himself or someone working for him. Since it's a BLP witha large dose of legal entanglement, I've purged everything not reliably sourced, which leaves almost nothing. Comment above claims he meets AUTHOR but I can't locate commentry or reviews amid all the self-promotional hype. Absent that I don't see notability. EEng (talk) 03:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - it's not helpful to delete 95% of an article before this AfD has concluded, is it? Sionk (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * None of the material, except for that on the 1971 SEC trouble, was sourced to anything remotely like a reliable source. In a BLP that's a no-no; when it describes legal trouble it's a real no-no; and when such sources as are present are controlled by the subject, it's a triple-somersault-with-twist no-no. That fact that there's almost nothing left -- in what was apparently a bio written by the someone connected witht he subject -- does underscore the lack of source on the available, however.  So in that sense maybe it's helpful to the AfD after all. EEng (talk) 22:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. The sources cited in the article (and in the prior full versions that I reviewed) just aren't sufficient to support a BLP.  While the problematic history of the article is not in itself a reason to delete, it underscore the difficulty of crafting a properly sourced and NPOV article.  If we cannot maintain an article that is properly sourced and balanced then it is better for us to have nothing at all.  Eluchil404 (talk) 09:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Every few years for more than 30 years, the subject person Weiss has had published (not self-published) a serious new nonfiction, some of which have reached real best-seller lists (including NY Times). Additionally, he has been quoted as industry expert by finance sections of: New York Sun, Wall Street Journal (subscription only) and Washington Post. I'd guess there are plenty more refs out there: book reviews, interviews, the like, each with another grain of notability accumulating overall to keepable notability. Here is the article's "pre-pruned" version. Of course, subject's notability is not an endorsement of any particular iteration of the article, the now-existing stub and a previous puff-piece notwithstanding. --→gab  24 dot  grab← 18:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Scattered one-sentence quotations are of littlle notability value -- though if you can fill us in on what WSJ said that might help a bit. As to his books, as previously stated I've had trouble finding independent reviews etc. among all the self-promotional hype.  Could you add material to the article which would speak to the requirements of WP-AUTHOR (which BTW is the same as WP-ECONOMIST)? EEng (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Weiss is a self-promoter, and his books and newsletters were/are intended to make money for him. So what! That doesn't change the fact that he has intelligent things to say and enjoys a measure of respect as an expert on the markets; he is notable and people in the industry know who Martin Weiss is, though I'd guess at least some of them dislike Weiss and would like to pretend he doesn't exist. I would be happy to see this article include honest criticism of Weiss, but that sourceable criticism actually tends to increase his notability (see WP:AUTHOR/WP:ECONOMIST). Incidentally, wouldn't that discussion help Wikipedia readers?
 * Weiss's notability is not merely because he was quoted in the Wall Street Journal (et al), but WSJ's 2008 choice of Weiss (among all experts they could have chosen to quote) implies that the industry (the newspaper's readership) already considered/considers his views to be useful/credible; in the context of a national newspaper specializing in finance, their choice of expert would open the newspaper to criticism if Weiss were entirely non-notable. In other words, this particular newspaper article (there are lots of others which haven't been ref'ed in this article previously) quotes only four experts on a complicated matter involving J. P. Morgan, and two of the four actually work for J. P. Morgan; the other two experts sure as heck better carry sufficient weight to be a useful counter to the company's own views. With that in mind, WSJ selects Weiss (even though he has no inside knowledge of the particular transactions) as one of the two overall experts with the gravitas to counter the company's official "there's nothing here, move along" view. Here is the quote:
 * "'Many pathways through this maze of derivatives lead back to J.P. Morgan," said Martin Weiss... "The domino effect of a major firm like Bear defaulting on its derivative transactions may have hurt other counterparties in the marketplace, many of which trade with J.P. Morgan."
 * User:EEng's view of one-sentence quotations is entirely valid if each quote were inconsequential (eg "Disco sucks!", said Joe Shmoe.) or one amongst a quote-farm (eg "REITs are a bad investment for seniors", agreed Joseph Shmoe [alongside ten similar quotes].). The fact is that Weiss's quotes are not typically trivial or buried amongst others; so in this application I disagree with EEng's categorization. Frankly, I would contend that a collection of one-sentence quotes does evidence a financial expert's notability, when the quotes have continued for decades in major financial publications such as the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times. In the case of this subject though, there is much more, for example a sizable 1992 article in the New York Times which was entirely focused on Martin Weiss entitled "The Bad Boy of Insurance Ratings": see New York Times, January 5, 1992, . The article includes both positives and negatives, as well it should, but it seems odd to consider Weiss to be non-notable after reading the effect he had on the industry in 1992 and the fact that 20 years later he and his books continue to be quoted by respected industry publications (many of these publications are subscription-only and thus not as readily apparent as those freely available on the internet).
 * None of this means that WSJ or NYT or another endorses Weiss, but they certain recognize the notability Weiss already enjoyed/enjoys. I do not agree with Weiss's opinions on most things, and I have absolutely no personal or professional connection with him or his projects. But his analyses have been generally respected and persistently cited, and have been proven correct enough that he has remained relevant for over thirty years. IMHO, it would be moronic ill-advised to delete this article; instead, it should eventually be improved (after all, there's WP:No deadline). While it's technically not incorrect to remove unreferenced material, I'm unconvinced that it is in the encyclopedia's best interests for editors to have removed all of it here. Again, keep. --→gab  24 dot  grab← 17:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Blah blah blah blah blah blah. Could you just add the sources to the article please, and stop all this pussyfooting around?  See my further comments below. EEng (talk) 06:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have time to do as you demand of me, which feels vaguely like bullying. I have no interest in investing my work into an article which you seem fixed on deleting; since I see the matter as it is, it would be illogical for me to add material (such as this NY Times profile of Weiss) unless the AfD ends without deletion. I don't care much about Dr. Weiss or this article particularly, but I damn sure do care about Wikipedia, and I'm quite confident that it would be a mistake to delete this article. Are you just as confident that it's not a mistake to delete it? --→gab  24 dot  grab← 15:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is hardly an Article anyway. The whole thing is literally 2 or 3 sentences. Combined with notability in question, that is a great reason to delete it. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 08:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It's actually just one sentence at the moment but, to be fair, I should point out that it's that way because that's all that's left after I removed everything but reliably-sourced claims. He might be notable under those claims (though I'm not sure of that) but no one's supplying the sourcing. EEng (talk) 12:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, but are you certain that better sources do not exist? The WP:Notability guideline plainly states: "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation. [ WP:NRVE ] " --→gab  24 dot  grab← 04:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not certain better sources don't exist, but the more time you spend elaborately applying proof-by-contradiction or argument in the alternative or whathaveyou to convince us that sources exist (multiple, substantial sources, that is) while only actually pointing to one or two that even arguably qualify -- instead of just adding a sufficient quantity to the article for everyone to see -- the more confident I become of that nonexistence. Yes, everbody already knows that sources aren't de jure required to actually be in the article, but when we combine a subject who is so relelentlessly self-promoting -- making it difficult to pick the indpendent needles from the self-promotion haystack -- with a zealous advocate such as yourself who implies he has a list of abundant notability-qualifying sources, ongoing failure to simply add those sources to the article strongly implies that you don't know where they are, either. EEng (talk) 06:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, well, I never intended to be coy about it. Again, so what! I absolutely reject the notion that a notable subject should be deleted just because it might be "difficult to pick the indpendent needles from the self-promotion haystack"; per WP:SOURCE, "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources". I no longer have Nexis access, but it seems certain that an editor who does could more easily draw the grain from the chaff as it were. Thus it seems disappointingly short-sighted to dismiss a mountain of harvest and insist that it should be summarily dumped in a compost heap because no one immediately at hand is personally interested in doing the work; you yourself seem to concede the existence of a mountain of potential sources. Let me be clear: I am not interested in doing hours of work here, but I'm not so obtusely dismissive as others. Just because I'm familiar with the subject's notability (for thirty years he's been quoted as an expert by Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, New York Sun, New York Times, et al and had multiple non-self-published books on NY Times bestseller lists) and just because I happen to have remembered the lengthy 1992 NY Times profile of Martin Weiss doesn't mean that I'm also interested in sinking hours into the sifting work required to please some arbitrary group of !VOTERS; by contrast I can bang out a paragraph of my own thoughts in just a few minutes. But let me be plain: I absolutely reject the notion that a notable subject should be deleted because he's unpopular or a few editors imagine (enforce?) some non-existent deadline. Per WP:NORUSH: "it is perfectly acceptable to let the editing process fashion an article up to our standards eventually. And if it takes a long time for that process to work, so what?" --<font style="font-variant:small-caps">→gab  24 dot  grab← 15:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete I can find enough sources to establish notability even for WP:BLP but I also agree that the article proposed for deletion completely failed to meet WP standards for establishing notability, for neutral point of view, for balance, and for independent sources. BOLD move, removing all the unsourced and inadequately sourced material but appropriate for a BLP article.  Hope another author or a big flock of Wikifaires will someday create an article deserving a spot in WP. DocTree (talk) 03:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - undeniably the subject has the potential for notability. He is a well-known financier who has been embroiled in legal issues, he has written plenty of books and has been quoted in reliable sources. However, none of this is convincingly represented in the article nor in the sources presented by the keepers. At present, therefore, notablity has not been established. I suggest that this is a good candidate for userfying if an editor is prepared to work on it. TerriersFan (talk) 22:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.