Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Karpin


 * 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 -socking is futile.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 02:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Matthew Karpin
May be noteable or not. I tend to think with only 55 google hits, he's non-noteable despite all the weaknesses of the Google test. However, I smell an attempt to bypass our WP:AUTO policy: on 12:20, October 12, 2006, User:Mkarpin created this article, and I promptly userfied it and informed the user 2 minutes later about WP:AUTO. Again three minutes later, new User:Mmgibson recreates the article, using exactly the same text. No thanks. Delete. Lupo 14:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. While sometimes it is acceptable for notable persons to write articles on themselves, Matthew Karpin is not notable.  He has published only one (fairly unpopular) book according to Amazon.com.  Google books returns no results in a search for his name.  Per WP:BIO, this author is non-notable.  Perhaps after he publishes a few more successful books, he will merit his own article.  Srose   (talk)  16:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Maybe I'll kick myself for this in twenty years, when Karpin is the Thomas Keneally of 2026, but in the meantime, notability is not established (no online references that are not either self-generated or plain listings; no reviews, no mentions in discussions of contemporary Australian literature, etc.).  Robertissimo 16:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Non notable, vanity, autobiographical, and suspected sockpupetry. The perfecta... --Jayron32 23:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   -- Canley 04:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't delete: There are 18 works, and 5 reviews, as listed in the Austlit database--the comprehensive reference source for Australian literature. (Are you all aware of this database? Perhaps not, which tends to indicate a super-power myopia.) Reviews are in reputable newspapers and journals, including The Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian, Southerly, and The Courier Mail. Amazon.com is not a good test for Australian notability. Thomas Keneally is a successful author in the sense of being bankable, but in Australian writing he is not the cultural high point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmeevans (talk • contribs) (. Jmeevans is one of the two contributors to this article, both appearing shortly after Mkarpin had been informed about WP:AUTO. Lupo 07:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC))
 * Austlit is subscription-only, unfortunately. The National Library of Australia lists three books (two as author, from 1995 and 2004, one as co-editor, from 1984). The library catalogue of the University of Queensland, where he is teaching (according to our article), also has only the 1984 and 1995 books, but at least tells us that he was born in 1959. All his other works seem to be individual poems or short stories. Lupo 08:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Don't know about super-power myopia; I don't live in one myself. More like lack of Google-searchable online archives for the papers mentioned.  An individual check of each shows that the Sydney Morning Herald has a capsule review as part of a fiction roundup, pay-to-view only; Karpin may be mentioned in a new-fiction roundup in The Australian (2/10/2004), but the article is also pay-to-view; the site for literary journal Southerly has no online archive; and a search of the Courier Mail site turns up nothing. Robertissimo 09:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Mind you, it is good--very good--to see an article on Alvirne High School. This notable high school had been previously neglected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmeevans (talk • contribs)
 * First, please sign your comments: just add ~ at the end of your messages; the software will translate them into a signature and a timestamp when you save. Second, thanks for fixing my typo. Third: if you want to lobby for a tightening of the WP:SCHOOL criteria, do so (at the appropriate places, not here!). But arguing about Alvirne High School isn't going to further this discussion here. Lupo 14:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, doesn't Matthew Karpin fulfil this criteria in WP Bio: "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work"? And please note that the article has been considerably revised. ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmeevans (talk • contribs)
 * Delete, assertions of notability are much too weak for my liking. Lankiveil 23:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC).
 * Don't delete . Please do not bold your opinion more than once.  Srose  (talk)  16:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC) It is of course best to keep such comments as these short, but it will be difficult to say what I want to very briefly, so I hope some of you can bear with me. Lupo, I don't want to quarrel with you, really. You seem like a very nice person, even thanking me for correcting your inaccuracy--and also helping me by telling me how to sign my article. However, you're being a little obtuse, aren't you, in creating some magical boundary between commentary in your encyclopedia concerning schools and that concerning literature? The point, of course, is that the encylopedia--which should probably really be called a compendium--is stacked full of trivia. A very arbitrary browse would tell anyone that that is the case. Why would I want to enter a debate about tightening up WP:SCHOOL criteria? I also would have no interest in sticking a tag on the trivia I find. It seems to me inseparable from what this encyclopedia does--as well as providing information about important issues. It seems that none of the people who have said "delete" have any expertise in the field of Australian literature at all--perhaps no expertise in any literary field. I don't really know. It even seems that no one was aware of the significance, when it comes to considering whether or not to delete this item, of the Austlit database--a not-for-profit organisation, unlike Google and Amazon.com., which one of you at least immediately turned to. However, no one has said Austlit should be considered the most reliable source. It's been remarked that to access the database you have to pay; but if Wikipedia can't pay to see the best information to support its decisions then it is even more removed from expertise than otherwise. The group who have responded to the article by saying delete strike me as at best punters, with a general understanding--annoyed at someone not using the editing process correctly; and, at worst, a gang, arrogantly backing each other up rather than trying to think about the material objectively. Finally, there is a real paucity of entries on Australian writers in your encyclopedia, but no shortage at all of American writers--many of whom I have never heard of before and never will again. Of course this reflects on the people who have taken the time; but it also reflects what this encyclopedia is: seriously biased towards the US, at least in this comparison. Such bias is the responsibility of everyone to correct. I do tell my students, when they quote from Wikipedia, that it is academically regarded as an unreliable reference source. I am not saying this to be contrary. This is a real criticism and something you should all be aware of. But you will make your decision sooner of later no matter what I say. ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmeevans (talk • contribs)
 * Comment. Wikipedia itself is not for profit.  Therefore, unless an editor on this site wants to shell out some money, Wikipedians cannot see the Austlit list.  Even if an editor did pay to access the list, not everyone can.  Therefore, it will be unverifiable, because most people will not be able to see it in order to verify it.  American and Australian writers are held to the same standards.  American authors must have books that are reasonably popular, and unless their book sells a million copies and is talked about in the press frequently, they must publish multiple, well-selling books.  Where are your reliable, third party sources, verifying that Matthew has won multiple awards or has been reviewed multiple times?  By the way, Google certainly is international in its coverage.  If I can find boatloads of information on Estonian writers, why wouldn't I be able to find a lot of information on an English-speaking Australian writer?  All of the editors here have taken independent, objective looks into the article as well as magazines, web searches, online lists, Google Books (which, incidentally, has novels by Estonian writers...), and news archives.  Please do not insult or degrade us; we have been extremely civil towards you, especially considering some of your accusations.  Srose   (talk)  16:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 15 October Don't delete. Entry is useful and informative about a published author with two books from quality publishers, short story in Best Australian Short Stories (2004) .  All too few entries on Australiani literature, particularly about up and coming new writers. Large numbers of entries are allowed in other cases  - US particularly.

'Maxjudge' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxjudge (talk • contribs)

Don't delete. What's the problem guys? Even if Karpin himself did create the original article and then got a friend? to resubmit it under a different name it's obvious the article is valuable in Wikipedia. The revised article clearly establishes a case to retain the information. (I've checked the austlit database, I have access and there are five reviews of Karpin's work in the herald, the Australian, Courire Mail and Southerley and another one, which are all very creditable pubs in Oz. Fulfils the multiple review crietera) I also see that the same author (jamievans) who revised the article created an article on the famous Australian writer Delia Falconer who hadn't been included before. This is all important stuff. Surely a big gap in Wikipedia, including references to the important mag Hermes. Important stuff. You guys are just ridiculous --Pop (Popallen)


 * Comment. Were you insulted? Dear oh dear. I don't think you should have been, any more than I should feel insulted. This is surely the argey bargey of debate. I'm trying to express this carefully, because I don't wish to offend: "Therefore it will be unverifiable" must be a special Wikipedian definition of veracity. The argument is: most people can't access the most significant of the databases in regard to this debate—only some can—therefore no one can verify the information. This is what we (you also have taken the liberty of claiming the collective) would call a fallacious argument. I can't imagine an argument of this sort standing up in any fair-minded forum. However, there is another fairly important point to make in response to Srose. The AustLit database is accessible via libraries in Australia for free—and I'm assuming this is the case with just about any library in the US (and most countries' major libraries). Obviously it may have to be organised at your end and would take a little extra time. You could probably do it through your personal computer at home. The argument that you have to pay to see the most relevant information is incorrect. The argument that Google provides the basis for Wikipedian information, at least in this case, and Australia's most academically authoritative source in this debate, the AustLit database, can't have a role, is surely demeaning to Wikipedia's relevance. Why not just rely on Google as your encyclopedia? (Jmeevans)


 * Comment. On second thoughts, I can't resist. Will you permit me just one little Australian joke: I think Srose might be a bit of a precious petal. (Jmeevans)
 * Delete Not notable. Also, strong evidence of sockpuppetry in the 'keep' comments above. Jeendan 00:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator; sockpuppets are irrelevent either way, this subject simply does not meet our WP:BIO guidelines and I see no other exceptional evidence to take into consideration beyong those guidelines. RFerreira 01:14, 18 October 2006 (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.