Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew James Stephenson


 * 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 speedy delete‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. CSD G3 Liz Read! Talk! 02:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Matthew James Stephenson

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This biographical article has -zero- independent, reliable sources. All the sources are either written by the subject, trivial mentions (speakers lists, inclusion in indiscriminate databases), or a couple of IMDB listings for nonnotable films. I've done some looking and haven't found any better sourcing for this individual. There are some others with similar names that show up in searches, so keep an eye out for that. This doesn't meet either WP:GNG or any of the criteria in WP:NBIO or WP:NPROF and so should be deleted. I'll also note that this was created as a mainspace duplicate by a new editor (likely with WP:COI) who was having trouble navigating the AFC process. They have resisted all efforts to get this back into draft space, so here we are at AFD. MrOllie (talk) 20:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MrOllie (talk) 20:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Academic Citations: The article includes references to Matthew Stephenson's academic work, including articles on arXiv, his author identifier on INSPIRE, and his contribution to the field of quantum information. These references indicate that he has made significant contributions to his academic field and has been recognized by the academic community.


 * Medical Publications: The article mentions Matthew Stephenson's contribution to a medical case report published in the journal "Interdisciplinary Neurosurgery." This demonstrates his involvement in medical research and his contribution to the field of neurosurgery.


 * Educational Institutions: The article mentions his education at the University of Washington and Stanford University. These institutions are well-known and reputable, adding to his credibility and potential notability.


 * Differential Datalog Interpreter: The article highlights Matthew Stephenson's development of a "Differential Datalog Interpreter," which has been cited in multiple sources including the SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System and Papers with Code. This indicates that his work has gained recognition beyond his own writing.


 * Former Childhood Actor: While the IMDB listings for his roles might be considered trivial by some, they still offer evidence of his involvement in the entertainment industry at actual roles integral to films with important actors like Cam Gigandet and Richard Jenkins. T


 * Speakers and Participants List: While some references are speakers lists from conferences, being included in such lists can demonstrate involvement and recognition within a specific field or community.


 * Lack of Alternatives: The claim suggests that the sources are the best available. If there are no better sources currently available, it might be reasonable to give some weight to the existing sources, especially when they span different areas of his life.


 * Avoiding Confusion: The claim acknowledges the possibility of confusion due to similar names. However, the article includes information specific to Matthew James Stephenson's medical and academic background, which can help differentiate him from individuals with similar names.


 * In conclusion, while there might be room for improvement in terms of additional independent sources, the existing references do provide a foundation for Matthew James Stephenson's notability as both a surgeon and an academic. The references span multiple aspects of his life, including his medical contributions, academic achievements, and involvement in the entertainment industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sphenopetroclival (talk • contribs) 20:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)  — Sphenopetroclival (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Again, not a single one of the cited sources meets the requirements of WP:GNG, and we'd need more than one such source to sustain an article. I'll also note here that the article creator, Sphenopetroclival, has been blocked for a bit after edit warring to remove the AFD tag from the article. - MrOllie (talk) 20:33, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * First, merely having written papers doesn't make a person notable. Second, merely graduating from good schools doesn't make a person notable. Third, the ADS is just a database of papers, not a source that indicates that a paper has been influential. The same goes for "paperswithcode". I am reminded of a prior case where someone tried to use the ADS copy of an arXiv abstract as an "independent source from Harvard". XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:GNG no reliable independent sources and the "evidence of his involvement in the entertainment industry" is laughable. Theroadislong (talk) 21:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - no reliable sources, marginal notability, most likely a case of advertising oneself on the Wiki. W.G.J. (talk) 21:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest Draftify if the page creator would agree to not preemptively moving it back to the main space. Liz Read! Talk! 01:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It already exists as a draft here Draft:Matthew James Stephenson. Theroadislong (talk) 06:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. Very low citation counts for a new doctorate adds up to no pass of WP:PROF, we have no other form of notability evident, most of this is either unreliably sourced (IMDB) or sourced only to the subject's own publications, and it is not even verifiable that the person who wrote the datalog paper, the person who wrote the adenoma paper, and the IMDB actor are the same person rather than different people with the same name. As for draftication, the kind of article for which that would be a good idea is one where the subject has a plausible case for notability or is notable but the article as written is far from acceptable in its writing or sourcing. This one is too far from notable for there to be any hope of getting an article from a draft, so draftification is a waste of time and a false hope. —David Eppstein (talk) 12:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Update: After seeing evidence below that both the datalog and adenoma papers have been plagiarized my delete opinion only grows stronger. Delete the draft too. We should not host material that we have reason to believe is fabricated, even in draft space. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. The authorship of the paper "A Differential Datalog Interpreter" for which he is supposedly known for is disputed (see, e.g, ). It appears that the article is an attempt at self-promotion, perhaps to bolster the position in this dispute. Mbs z (talk) 13:14, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Wow! Good find. It's not just the titles, either. and  have identical text. MrOllie (talk) 16:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Weird. See also . XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not notable under any academic criteria. Also --if the criteria @Sphenopetroclival had were sufficient for notability, pretty much everyone with an MD or Phd would have their own wikipedia page.Mason (talk) 13:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete as vanispamcruftisement. Nuke the draft, too: this is not a case where incubating a page in draft space would actually be helpful. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is some seriously weird stuff going on around this person. https://www.facebook.com/462508190484900/posts/36429-hey-yo-this-is-not-really-a-confession-matthew-stephenson-is-a-person-who-/3015197208549306/ There is a "Matthew D. Stephenson" licensed as a surgeon in 2017 in the SF area, but it's not clear if anything published from ~2016 on is by the same person, or whether the twitter/facebook/insta accounts are operated by the licensed physician (the posts sound like they're coming from a young teenager...). Preemptive salting might be advised. JoelleJay (talk) 01:27, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually I've tagged to speedy delete it, this is clearly a hoax. JoelleJay (talk) 02:18, 24 August 2023 (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.