Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Joseph Harrington


 * 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. --Core desat 02:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Matthew Joseph Harrington

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable author: sole output appears to be two short stories in the shared-universe anthology Man-Kzin Wars XI Tearlach 00:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Notability not asserted. MSJapan 00:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, lack of notability and no sources. Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 00:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 03:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable author. This article needs sources. Daniel5127 | Talk 03:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - The author is known to and has to some degree influenced thousands of people, and a point was made of including no unverifiable information no matter how interesting it was. (There's a Wikipedia article on Sylvia Plath, for pity's sake, and everyone whose thinking was significantly influenced by her work is ipso facto dead.) Matthew Joseph Harrington 05:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: This user is the article creator as well as the subject of the article. MSJapan 06:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This user is the original vandal of this article. Matthew Joseph Harrington 18:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - For the records, there were no vandalistic edits. All edits were good faith, and as far as I can tell, were made to make the article more encylopedic. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: agreed. This presumably refers to the removal of a section of aphorisms from the stories that would be unusual to include even with a major author. Tearlach 19:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: The addition of false information and perversion of phrasing to destroy meaning may be through mere ignorance or incompetent writing skills, but that does not make the term Good Faith applicable. Of course, if someone who does such things actually can write clearly enough to be able to judge professional-grade work, the only possible motive is malice.Matthew Joseph Harrington 00:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment What false information? The COI tag? It is obvious you have a COI here. The removal of the quotes? that is not the addition of false information, that is removal of unencylopedic content.  Nothing wrong with that?  What false information was added, please, back up these assertions, otherwise it is just blowing smoke. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As stated previously: The term Naval Base was replaced by Naval Air Station, a term not yet in use in 1960, which is when I was born at the US Naval Base in Yokosuka. It is a falsehood, of precisely the same character as referring to a WWII Army Air Corps veteran as belonging to the US Air Force-- which did not then exist. This kind of disregard for accuracy is surely not appropriate for anything calling itself an encyclopedia. Matthew Joseph Harrington 23:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * OK - so provide reliable published sources about what it was called then, and we'll include them Tearlach 23:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please stop stalking me. Matthew Joseph Harrington 02:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Nitpicking. Whatever it was called at the time, it was still linked to the correct article, it was still located in the same place, and it was still a Navy base.  It's not like I changed it to read "Ft. Bragg, North Carolina Army base"; I simply used the title I was familiar with, and as a note, it's not called the Naval Air Station anymore, either, but I don't see a complaint from the author about that, probably because that factual change doesn't affect him somehow.  In any case, it's not grounds for vandalism claims (all he had to do was change that one item and explain it, rather than reverting on the grounds of "vandalism" and "factual inaccuracy", and then accusing WP of total inaccuracy based on the one item), it's not grounds for closing the AfD (which is the author's intent with this protracted argument ("I'm right, so you need to keep my article")), and it's not an excuse for this argument at all.  What it is is an excuse for the author of this article to not admit COI and NN by spinning the blame off onto others.  Frankly, this doesn't even merit the response I gave it, and I'm not going to comment further.  With a 15-2 (maybe) vote in favor of deletion, where he was born isn't going to matter. MSJapan 00:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Given that you were the one who decided to pick a fight over your mistakes being corrected, it's ever so big of you to stop keeping the wounds open. Matthew Joseph Harrington 02:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Not notability I don't know what that guy on but he crazy this is a very notable Man-Kzin Wars. There no way that this should be deleted the person who request deletion must have some sort of grudge against the creator and should not be taken seriously.(AG)(Anothergirl The Original And Best 13:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC))(note: first edit from newly-created account Tearlach 14:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC))


 * Delete, fails to pass WP:BIO. Sr13 (T|C) 08:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, that's a notable anthology in SF circles. Rhinoracer 08:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, as that does seem to be a notable anthology. Ab e g92 contribs 12:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete- per failing WP:BIO Retiono Virginian 12:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - yes, the anthology's notable, but it already has its own article. --Mary quite contrary (hai?) 16:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - if the best argument even the subject of the article can make for keeping this is WP:WAX this is unsalvageable. -  irides centi   (talk to me!)  17:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete- per same reasons as Iridescenti and Retiono Virginian.--Vidkun 18:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - vanity bio. No good reliable third party/external sources to back any assertsions. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:BIO and is (obviously) a COI. User:Veesicle 19:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Rhinoracer. COI violation is not a valid reason for deletion. Subject should refrain from editing article and allow others to work out the content. Jefferson Anderson 20:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BIO not to mention WP:COI. If that work is indeed notable, there are no sources to prove it.  Amazon rank is 315,412.  There are a few GHits for the author's full name, but certainly don't prove notability (if anything, the opposite, judging by the top ranked return).  Eliminator JR  Talk  21:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Tubalcain. Matthew Joseph Harrington 05:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as per Iridescenti and EliminatorJR. Edward321 23:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Mary quite contrary —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.213.8.161 (talk • contribs).
 * Who you? Matthew Joseph Harrington 15:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete non notable author, no reliable sources and fails the G-test Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk
 * Comment - CLosing admin, Currently, User:Matthew Joseph Harrington has almost an identical copy of this article on his userpage. This may be a problem being his name is so similar to the article.  You may also want to remove the copy from the userspace as well. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - actually, isn't his user page precisely the correct location for it? Jefferson Anderson 19:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - if it conforms to userpage standards. However, it is just a copy of this, qith quotes and all.  My only concern is that his name is the same as the article.  If it is trying to get publicity through this, a google search will still bring up his userpage, because wikipedia pages get such high rankings.  I just want to make sure it is not used to promote the author in question.  I have chosen not to delete it or be involved in this in any administrative manner, however request the closing admin to take it into account. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, there's no warrants currently out on me, so I didn't think to conceal my identity when I signed up; and if I now understand the definition correctly, coming up with another ID is called "sockpuppeting"? Some of the stuff on my userpage is a LOT more colorful than the article, and was intended for the people who already know my work and wonder who I am, so I don't have to keep writing the same email over and over. I used the stuff from the article because it was available, and already written. By now, the userpage would also have material about my work in preventing concealment of maternal child abuse if I hadn't been otherwise diverted. --Not just by stuff here, I hasten to add. It's been some week. --And it keeps going on. See you whenever. Matthew Joseph Harrington 21:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. dcandeto 23:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Chtirrell 01:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - per WP:NN - vanity bio - Alison ☺ 03:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The Man-Kzin books are amateur fanfic. No article. Herostratus 03:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - as per WP:NN-- VS talk 07:19, 15 April 2007 (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.