Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Nye


 * 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. As is almost always the case in these discussions, it all comes down to significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. It seems that sufficient sources could not be found for the subject of this article. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Matthew Nye

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable minor political activist. No independent sources. Sole reference just mentions him in passing.  Will Beback   talk    23:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Matt Nye's involvement in the Tea Party in Florida and with the national Republican Liberty Caucus is noteworthy. I started this page and can add more references. I would encourage others to help build the page too, unless the proposal for deletion hinges on my sole participation in building the page. If that's the case, I will start adding the necessary references - it's easier to delete these pages than to help build them - but the latter option is more informative. Swift deletion of a page that is barely getting started on Wikipedia discourages others from making contributions. I'd ask that you please give this volunteer writer the time to flesh the page out today.--PoliticalJunkie2012 (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * These discussions generally last at least a week, so if more sources are available there's time to add them. I can't find any references to this subject in the Proquest newspaper archive. The accomplishments in the article currently do not seem to meet the criteria at WP:POLITICIAN for notability.   Will Beback    talk    23:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 00:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 00:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Is National Treasurer of the Republican Liberty Caucus a noteworthy position?   D r e a m Focus  14:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, because there is no significant coverage about him getting that position. -- Whpq (talk) 14:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

National treasurers to comparable organizations (College Republicans, Young Republicans, etc.) are hyperlinked for a Wiki article though these don't exist. I began the article to contribute to the process of fleshing out an understanding of who the folks are that come forward to do this type of work and who they are working with. I don't see it as dissimilar from an article on the Executive Director of another political entity that is about as equally sourced if not less than this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._Clarke_Cooper. My sole intention in adding this is that as I peruse Wikipedia (and normally I do so in largely two areas: politics and music) I tend to get frustrated at names mentioned (or bands, etc.) that don't have an article. If there are references (even if just a couple) then I feel that's sufficient for me to be able to corroborate some modicum of information on the person (the fact that Wikipedia is a place where you can find something so easily is the reason I felt inclined to contribute - that's what makes it unique and useful). I'm sincerely curious, being fairly new to editing here (everyone is new at some point - I don't feel that should minimize what I can contribute): how many people does it take to decide to delete an article? I thought the point was that people would collaborate to build these over time. Some friends and colleagues who could really contribute to Wikipedia have stopped in frustration that they feel it's not worth their effort because people delete too swiftly. As a music fan I've been frustrated to see articles on certain musicians taken down rather than fleshed out collaboratively. I recently created an article for a musician and couldn't believe an original was taken down for whatever reason. The article I wrote had many references (why didn't folks with more experience help build the article rather than just take it down?). Even with half the references the article seemed noteworthy... I appreciate that Wikipedia is a democratic collaboration, but I feel all articles should start somewhere and I see many that are equally referenced or less so than this one. I feel it adds a piece of a larger puzzle that is referenced more strongly, (the overall Republican Liberty Caucus and Tea Party) and it fits within that piece. Some articles will be long, some short, but they are all bound to evolve. Some people will pay attention to who is serving in any officer capacity in any organization. I do. I suspect not everyone that does is participating in these discussions: Wikipedia is not that easy to navigate beyond finding articles and reading them.--PoliticalJunkie2012 (talk) 19:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Whpq: isn't your article on Desmond T. Burke http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desmond_T._Burke referenced with the exact same amount of references as Matthew Nye's? You stated Nye's article is not referenced enough: that it "lacks significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability" but your article on Burke is practically equal in reference length. Can you explain how your article is somehow more noteworthy with the exact same amount of references? Same amount in your articles on Bruce Stambler http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Stambler, WF Romain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Francis_Romain, Mozart Festival http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midsummer_Mozart_Festival, and Turkey Point http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey_Point_Provincial_Park.

From there it goes down to three references in these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trafalgar_Township, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Abbott_(British_Columbia), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Urquhart, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronis%C5%82awa_Ludwichowska, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonehooking, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgian_Bay_Littoral, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_Measures_(novel),

Some of your articles have only TWO references: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meredith_Anne_Gardner

But what really trumps are those with ONLY ONE reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitchell_Smith, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forks_of_the_Credit_Provincial_Park, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrowhead_Provincial_Park, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutherford_Lester_Whiting, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Douglas_Ogilby.

How many of those should we nominate for deletion? Or do you plan to improve them?--PoliticalJunkie2012 (talk) 19:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply - Firstly, articles stand or fall on their own merit (see WP:OTHERSTUFF). The primary inclusion criteria for this, and any article on wikipedia is defined by WP:NOTABILITY, and is not a simple exercise in counting references.  If you feel that any of the articles that I created fail to meet the inclusion criteria, you are welcome to discuss the specifics with me and other editors at the article's talk page, or if they clearly fail the inclusion criteria, nominate them for deletion, so long as you aren't doing that just to make a point. (See WP:POINT).  I'll gladly evaluate sources and change my mind if I feel WP:NOTABILITY is met, but at this point, I see none of that. -- Whpq (talk) 19:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Whpq: you stated that notability was lacking for lack of references. This is your case against this article standing: "Delete - Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)" The majority of your articles fail your own standard for notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PoliticalJunkie2012 (talk • contribs)


 * PoliticalJunkie2012, I'm responding here to your message on my talk page. To begin with, anyone may nominate an article for discussion. However nominations made in bad faith are often closed immediately.
 * Second, the most important issue in these discussions is notability, not number of references. For example, if obscure scientist John Doe wins a Nobel Prize, then he deserves an article even if we could momentarily find only a single decent source. OTOH, a press secretary may be quoted frequently in news stories without ever becoming notable himself because all of those appearances in print are not about him; they're about whatever topic he's addressing. In the case of Nye, some of the references are like that: just him being quoted about some political topic.
 * Have you read the notability guideline? Until you have then it's hard to discuss whether Nye meets that standard. I think that once you have you'll see for yourself that he does not.   Will Beback    talk    19:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Will Beback:

I feel notability carries a pretty subjective weight. I think it's resourceful to point out inconsistencies in what others argue for this reason. As I mentioned: the case being made for lack of notability was the amount of references. Do as you wish with the Matthew Nye article. I still feel there's an arbitrary interpretation of the notability guide being put in practice. I'm not personally offended at this, I just feel it's an important fact to point out. Some people are more interested in politics than others. Do editors specialize in areas and topics here on Wikipedia? I'd prefer to see the discussion take place with folks who have edited substantially on political subjects - but that's just a preference.--PoliticalJunkie2012 (talk) 20:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * PJ, have you read the notability guideline? If so, please tell me how this subject meets that standard. There is even a special version for politicians, WP:POLITICIAN, which I've already referenced on this page? How, specifically, does the subject meet that standard? It really is a fairly objective determination. Are we missing something?   Will Beback    talk    20:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - Just to be clear, it not the number of sources, but the nature of the sources that matter. The sourcing in the article as of this version consists of:
 * The web site of the RLC which is not an independent source
 * An article about sea turtle studies funding in which Nye is quoted, so is not significant coverage about Nye
 * A Meetup link which is not a reliable source, and is essentially self-published
 * Local election coverage, which is a reliable source, but which relatively short, and by itself does not establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 20:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems the article may bear relevance if researched more aggressively by writers. Not sure how to encourage more involvement among Wiki writers to do that. I'm willing to do some research for more news sources. Seems like a reasonable article, at least through the 2012 election or until his involvement with the Liberty Republican group expires. is there a certain amount of time set for this page to be worked on or is it being deleted?--Libertyconsulting (talk) 07:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

A "Matt Nye" search seems to generate some hits on Google that are neglected here in the article. May help improve this.--Libertyconsulting (talk) 07:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Are any of the hits profiles of Nye? If so they'd be useful. If not, then they're probably not very relevant to this discussion.   Will Beback    talk    08:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

There are profiles, but two I found are blocked by Wikipedia - makes it tough to improve the article, for example, stuff posted on examiner (dot) com...?--Libertyconsulting (talk) 08:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Examiner.com is not a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 20:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm sorry, but I'm just not finding the notability - in a Google News search or in his claimed achievements. He is treasurer of one of many caucuses within the Republican Party; not notable. He is a tea party activist in Florida; nobody seems to have noticed except his county's local paper, "Florida Today" . He is an unsuccessful candidate for local office; not notable. Rewriting is not going to help; the subject just does not meet the criteria for inclusion per WP:BIO. --MelanieN (talk) 22:02, 4 December 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.