Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew D. Sacks


 * 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.  Sandstein  05:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Matthew D. Sacks

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Promotional article for a writer of questionable notability. All references are to primary sources, basically identifying that yes, he's published a few articles. All other claims of notability are completely unreferenced. Google search for "Matthew D. Sacks" Bitsource (which he is allegedly primarily known for) shows only 8 results. A search on "Matthew D. Sacks" GlassCode (the company he is CEO of) also shows only 8 results. A search on just the name mainly shows primary sources, or social media sites - little significant coverage. Appears to fail WP:AUTHOR specifically, and WP:BIO in general. MikeWazowski (talk) 23:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, your bias is ever-present. If you search for "Matthew Sacks" Bitsource, there are 1,860 results. The author usually does not include his middle initial in his name. --Louella romano (talk) 00:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from making personal attacks - it does not help your case. But since you're trying to discredit my argument, I'll give you the links. "Matthew D. Sacks" Bitsource shows only 8 results. However, in regards to your search result, in actuality, a search on "Matthew Sacks" Bitsource only brings up 260 unique results - most of them are primary sources, blogs, directory listings, and social media sites. Not a lot of significant coverage from independent reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 01:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Clearly fails to meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Google search shows does not reveal enough third-party, reliable sources, that cover this person in a non-trivial way.  Given that this person is supposed to be a well-known programmer, the lack of Google hits pretty much indicates that this person is not notable. Singularity42 (talk) 00:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. The users requesting to delete this page are clearly ignoring the facts. Two citations have been added that are independent of the authors publication that discuss the author. In addition to this, are magazine articles and books published by major publishers not reason enough for reliable sources?
 * In regard to the lack of Google hits, this is not documented anywhere in the requirements of being a notable author. Also, the number of Google hits for a precision search (with quotes) is approximately 15,000 results, which is notable. An administrative review has been requested on this article. The editors on this article who are requesting deletion continue to *ignore the facts* that the Guidelines for notability *have been met*, regardless of their personal feelings. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Matthew_D._Sacks for more details and ADREV status. Additionally editors, who mark pages for deletion based on their personal feelings rather than facts should be considered for vandalism. Louella romano


 * Delete per nom, AndyTheGrump, and Singularity42.  —  Jeff G.  ツ  00:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't usually respond to AfDs, but I stumbled across this and it looks pretty clear to me. User:Louella romano is advised that the onus is on an article's authors to establish the notability of the subject; an editor proclaiming that something is not notable is not responsible for backing up their assertion. It's your job to provide sources that meet our guidelines. In your sources, I see the program for an event which included this person, their profile on a web site to which they contribute, and several articles written directly by the subject of the article. I don't believe, from skimming the conversation here and at the article talk page, that you're totally understanding the issue here, so I'm going to give another example. If I were writing an article on Shakespeare, I would need to do more to establish his notability than simply link to Hamlet, Richard III, and the Globe Theatre's web page. I would need to link to newspaper articles, academic papers, biographies, another encyclopedia, etc. to establish what it is about Shakespeare that makes him notable. I might provide a citation from an English textbook, describing Shakespeare as one of the fathers of modern literature; I might link to an article published around an anniversary of his birth, describing some of his accomplishments and how they impacted his world. And that's to establish someone like Shakespeare. When we're dealing with a living person, it's even trickier- largely because Wikipedia has a huge problem with what we call "vanity articles." Perhaps if you could provide an article written by someone other than Sacks, in a publication that has nothing to do with him and talking about something influential that he's done, he might be notable enough for inclusion. We'd have to burn that bridge when we came to it. But to be honest, the article as it's written looks more like a LinkedIn profile than a Wikipedia entry, and that's the problem.
 * And frankly, I don't see what "bias" any Wikipedia editor might have against this person. He seems like a fine columnist. --Moralis (talk) 00:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Such external references have been provided. See articles 1 and 2 in references. What you describe in your Shakespeare is not present anywhere in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOURCES#Reliable_sources. It simply states that a source has to be reliable, not that the New York Times has to be writing about them, which is also outlined in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability "Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice". Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below." Methinks you need to abide by your own rules and guidelines. --Louella romano (talk) 00:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." (Hamlet, Act III, Scene ii) :)  —  Jeff G.  ツ  00:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes: read WP:AUTHOR, and then demonstrate how Sacks passes that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You aren't getting it. The very beginning of the section you've just linked us to in WP:SOURCES reads, "Base articles on reliable,third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." (Emphasis mine.) You have not provided what we would consider third-party sources- the only sources you've provided that weren't written by the subject of the article are the ones you've just mentioned, numbers one and two. Both of those sources appear to be his profile in the programs for conferences in which he participates. All of the rest of your sources were written by Sacks.


 * WP:NOTE states that in order to qualify, the subject must be significantly covered in reliable sources that are not in any way affiliated with the subject. Not a single one of your sources meets those criteria. They're all affiliated with him. And please try to assume good faith. Nobody's trying to delete your article because they don't like you or because they don't like Matthew D. Sacks. It's because we are trying to follow our rules and guidelines, and those rules and guidelines tell us that this article's subject isn't notable. --Moralis (talk) 01:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. It looks like he does meet the WP:BIO guidelines although he is not as famous as others his notability and references are enoguh to warrant an article, furthermore his efforts in the development community should be publicly recognized.   --Gfontejon (talk) 00:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC) — Gfontejon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * While I do not intend to disobey my own advice and assume bad faith, the above comment appears to have been left by a single-purpose account. Furthermore, it is not for Wikipedia to decide whether anyone's efforts in any community should be recognized. We just parrot other peoples' recognition. --Moralis (talk) 01:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Notability of the subject is not established, much less asserted. MSJapan (talk) 02:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Comparison
I would like to bring forth another example for comparison. Here is another software community leader who has a similar Wikipedia page. The arguments being made against this article could easily be used against this example as well. This is why I feel that the article is being treated unfairly and differently as it clearly shows a similar merit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jono_Bacon. Under this example, one might argue that there is no reason that such an article as that on Mr. Bacon should be approved and this should not. The citations and verifications are very similar to that on the article in question here. --Louella romano (talk) 01:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There is an essay that discusses arguements to avoid in deletion discussions, Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. One of the sections is about other stuff within wikipedia, OTHERSTUFF.  Just because there is a similar article within wikipedia, it does not mean that this article should stay.  Even if this article ends up being deleted that does not mean that the other article should be deleted also.  Each article is evaluated individually.  GB fan please review my editing 02:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have PRODded the other article.  —  Jeff G.  ツ  02:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The PROD tag was removed; I have since created Articles for deletion/Jono Bacon.  —  Jeff G.  ツ  03:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Unable to locate anything resembling the significant coverage required to support an article. Also, mmmm bacon.. Яehevkor ✉  15:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: no reliable sources with significant coverage of this subject have been produced, fails notability guidelines. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete just a promotional set of bullets. W Nowicki (talk) 01:24, 6 August 2011 (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.