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. Basically see what Uncle G says below, to whom you people should have listened. You guys have provided a tremendous deal of argumentation but no actual sources!!! about this guy other than some blog and entries on CDBaby and IMDB, which aren't terribly hard to get. This AfD debate has, bizarrely enough, had evidence of reliable third party coverage presented about it, while none could be found on Matthew Dallman himself beyond the blurb in the Washington Post, which doesn't really constitute non-trivial coverage on him. Since this is a high profile AfD, I really suggest people read and understand what Uncle G says below before jumping to any conclusions about systematic bias on Wikipedia. If reliable, published sources unrelated to Wikipedia or Dallman had been presented with information about him, this article would have been kept. But those sources don't seem to have covered him yet... so any beef should be with them for not writing about him, not with Wikipedia for merely enforcing our established policies. If you can't be bothered to read Uncle G's full comment, at least read the summary: "So if you wish to make an argument, please cite sources. Sources work. "I'm notable. I've done X, Y, and Z." does not." And the latter was all that was presented. W.marsh 17:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Dallman[edit]

Matthew Dallman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No references to establish notability. One entry in IMDB for Matthew Dallman, but no way to link the two. Fails WP:Notability. Hatch68 06:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• What does "no way to link the two" mean? "A Whirling Tango" is the film Dallman scored, and it is listed on this page. User:Curlygoose 30 November 2006
  • The IMDB entry has no information other than the name of the director, who shares the surname "Dallman" and that the total running time is "4 minutes." This is an obscure reference at best.--Hatch68 02:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Marquis Who's Who in America (mentioned in Dallman's article) is a long-reputable and refereed publication, and Dallman is in the 2007 edition for his work as a thinker, and composer. User:Curlygoose 30 November 2006
• Four other Wikipedia articles mention Dallman prominently, referencing him as integral artist, a voice for integral thought, a critic of Ken Wilber, as well as of Wilber's Integral University. This article thus should not be deleted. User:Curlygoose 30 November 2006
• IMDB listing for Dallman added to External Links User:Curlygoose 30 November 2006
• Delete, fails WP:BIO criteria. Terence Ong 07:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, vanity self-promotion. -- RHaworth 07:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. MER-C 07:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, potential notability just doesn't pan out in reliable sources, WP:COI seals it. --Dhartung | Talk 07:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Very suspect article, likely to be conflict of interest. The subject's production company is called "Electric Goose", and the author's handle is a single purpose account, Curlygoose. He creates an article in wikipedia and then pulls quotes from wiki onto his website, creating his own little walled garden. One music credit does not notable make. Ohconfucius 08:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I am simply attempting to recreate the article originally created by user User:M Alan Kazlev because it was deleted two days ago. In the process, I have referenced Dallman's personal website and writings in order to fill out the article, so it won't be deleted again. Plain and simple.User:Curlygoose 30 November 2006
  • According to the deleted edits, you were the original creator of the article, on 2006-07-05, not M Alan Kazlev. Uncle G 14:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Marquis Who's Who is itself a vanity publication where inclusion is often dependent on the person buying a copy of the book. Even if it wasn't, you give no specific reference to which edition someone would find this person in. Please take the time to read all of the Wiki Policies people are taking the time to link to for you. You have to provide solid references to back everything up.--Hatch68 20:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Individual appears notanle to me given his previous association with Wilber, a popular new age writer as well as his music releases and book deal. — goethean ॐ 17:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as I suspect that this is an advertising article but at the same time he seems to be a legitamate artist and blogger. And we have many pages for bloggers. Even if this page did start out as an ad, we can clean it up to improve it's Wiki-credibility. Sharkface217 20:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:Bio, and per Hatch. --TheOtherBob 16:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Friends, Matthew Dallman here. I was just made aware of this article's consideration for deletion. In the spirit of the WP:AB guidelines, which speak of "Therefore, it is considered proper on Wikipedia to let others do the writing. Instead, contribute material or make suggestions on the article's talk page", here I am to do just this.

  I would feel strange arguing for my "notability", and it appears that Wikipedia culture doesn't believe I should, anyway, which is fine by me. I can speak to a couple issues, though. First, the Marquis' Who's Who in America, which will include me in the 2007 edition, does not require me to purchase a copy of the book, so that charge by Hatch68 is incorrect. My credentials were independently judged by its editors to be worthy of inclusion. Also, Hatch68 questions the IMDB listing; it is for a short film that my wife directed, and I scored; the film played in various film festivals, incl the prestigious Chi. Int'l. in 2005, in one of their "shorts programs"; it also played at other festivals, in Chicago and Milwaukee, USA. The IMDB listing was, I believe, created by someone internal to the Chicago Int'l Film Festival.

  I have an email acquaintance with the creator of this original listing page for me (M Alan Kazlev); he informed me after he made the page, and invited me to make whatever corrections were needed. I took him up, but only on minor points. It seems now, as I know more about Wikipedia, that such participation by me is a Wiki-no no. Other than that, I have had no part in this, but it was clear, from seeing the page first develop, that Alan pulled from the bio page on my personal website (matthewdallman.com/bio.html), and that other users (I don't know who) were adding to the page, so the charge by Ohconfucius is incorrect. Lastly, it might be noteworthy that, in addition to the arts journal I founded (POLYSEMY), I was involved with another publication -- The Manifest (the-manifest.org). In addition to authoring several articles for that magazine, their editor in chief interviewed me. (see http://www.the-manifest.org/features/dallman1.html).

  I fear I've said too much, so I'll stop. If there are any questions, let me know. Sharkface217's suggestion to "improve it's Wiki-credibility" makes sense to me. M Dallman 1 Dec 2006

  • I made no charges concerning the Who's Who book. I simply pointed out that by itself it is a suspect reference due to vanity inclusions. The point of this whole discussion is not really whether you are notable or not. The premise here is that there is a real lack of reliable references that can provide verifiability of notability.

    I will go on the record to say that I really suspect some sockpuppetry going on here as well. The link to the Wikipedia article was featured prominently on your home page. The username Curlygoose has two clues; the first being that your picture that was uploaded and used in the article shows you with very curly hair, the second is that your production company is named Electric Goose. Also, the user Curlygoose uploaded the picture used in the article, then put a copyright notice on the picture that the copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose, which leads me to believe that Curlygoose is the copyright holder. None of this is definitive proof, but viewing them as a whole makes me extremely suspicious.--Hatch68 19:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The way to construct articles about people is to use non-trivial published works from sources that are independent of the person concerned. (See User:Uncle G/On notability#Writing_about_subjects_close_to_you.) Re-hashing an autobiography (taken off the subject's own web site or otherwise) is not the way to write an article on a person, a band, or a company. We remember the lessons of Jamie Kane (AfD discussion), Alkhemi (AfD discussion), and Aladin (AfD discussion). A simple re-hash of Jamie Kane's web-site would have resulted in a completely fictional article about a nonexistent person. Aladin's web site quoted references to magazine articles that, when one looks at the on-line archive of the magazine concerned, don't actually exist. And only one person stated that Alkhemi even existed. Autobiographies are not to be trusted, for the reasons laid out at Wikipedia:Autobiography.

    The best way to demonstrate that a person is notable is to show that such published works exist by pointing to them, i.e. to cite sources to demonstrate that our Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies (WP:BIO) are satisfied. If you can do that, you can make a strong argument for keeping. However, conversely, if no such published works exist, a reliable and full Wikipedia article cannot be written, because we don't base our articles on autobiographies, on people, companies, groups, bands, web sites, and whatnot telling the world about themselves. As all of our notability criteria for people, companies, web sites, bands, and so forth state, autobiographies, advertising, and self-publicity are not routes to having a Wikipedia article.

    So if you wish to make an argument, please cite sources. Sources work. "I'm notable. I've done X, Y, and Z." does not. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G 14:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - IMDB listing, Journal editor, discography, blogger. Hence notable. If anyone has problems with vanity etc then the page can be edited accordingly M Alan Kazlev 21:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but I don't agree with the concept of adding things up to achieve notability. A person with a non-notable IMDB listing, who is also a non-notable journal editor, with a non-notable discography, and who writes a non-notable blog is not therefore notable. (If he were notable for one of those things, the others wouldn't matter, either - if he were a notable blogger, it wouldn't matter for notability terms whether he was also a non-notable journal editor.) Remember that although we may think that a person who's done all these things is impressive, that's not the same as notable.--TheOtherBob 22:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for lack of reliable sources and apparent failure of WP:BIO. shotwell 10:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete fails WP:BIO. (Backface 17:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC))Prolific blogger but all work is self-published, including music, article and journals. The film that relates to credited music is not notable in its own right. The external comments are all from a close community and self published on web by non-RS. Kazlev and Goethean who propose 'keep' above are both from this community.

• • • • In other words having expertise in a specialised subject automatically means one is part of a "close community", and therefore one's comments don't matter? Two wrong assumptions here - first that there is a "close community", second that one's opinions don't matter only because it is a specialised subject. If you look at any specialised subject, let us say (to cite another of my interests) a particular field or subfield of Paleontology, you will always find only a small number of students and researchers and workers in that field, precisely because it is such a specialised subject. But that doesn't malke it non-notable, nor does it make the opinions of those who are students of that field irrelevant. Same here. M Alan Kazlev 23:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Once again I feel this is another attempt at deflecting from the real issue here, which is that no one seems to be able to come up with reliable, verifiable sources to demonstrate notability. No one that has advocated for keeping this article has addressed this issue. No sources = No Verifiability = No Notability, unless I'm completely misunderstanding the policies.--Hatch68 23:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • See my note on "Countering systematic bias" below M Alan Kazlev 21:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • 'CurlyGoose', Goethean and Kazlev suggest a number of reasons for keeping the article, none of which stand-up. Previous association with or criticism of someone notable, even Wilber(!?), does not in itself demonstrate notability. The 'wiki-credibility' of the article is irrelevent if its inclusion is prohibited by a lack of notability. Other wikipedia references cannot be used to establish notability without real external RS.
  • This previously deleted article appears to have been resurrected by the subject's sock and then he has the cheek to comment above seperately using both his sock and his own name. Sheeesh... An administrator will be able to compare the ip addresses, if Dallman wants to state here that he and curlygoose are unrelated.
  • It is interesting to note that the addition of Dallman to the Integral Art page was made by Curlygoose. On the Ken Wilber talk page user 67.109.221.130 identifies himeself as Dallman and then goes on to add POV to the references to himself on that page and the other pages that are used here to justify his notability.
  • Matthew - Do not be offended by this deletion - notability is determined by wikipedia policy not by how important you feel yourself to be or how proud you are of your entry here. --Backface 17:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It is also interesting to note in the history of this debate that CurlyGoose originally asserted that he had no connection with Dallman, but has now removed that statement following the observation that and administrator would be able to determine the truth of the matter from ip addresses. This would appear to underline the socking, bad faith and self-(re)creation of the article and it should be deleted speedily. --Backface 08:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this entire debate has been referenced in the Washington Post. [1].

Catchpole 21:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment Catchpole - Are you suggesting that a reference to this debate by a newspaper column about wikipedia pages being deleted because of a lack of notability actually makes the page notable? Really!!??? --Backface 21:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a verifiable and reliable source. Catchpole 21:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually it just means that this debate now has a verifiable and notable reference. Matthew Dallman still doesn't, which is a point he and others seem to not be able to grasp.Hatch68 03:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. --Mallarme 09:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Comment. -- I particularly love this puffery cruft from the article. Perhaps it can be kept somewhere...
      • He explores ideas within the realm of art. These include integral as "a living tradition of imaginative fullness through the ages", art as transdisciplinary field, what "postconventional" art means, as well as "artistry studies", an area of academic study that Dallman himself has founded.
    • --Backface 09:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete. No obvious notability, and although he has a few Google references they are all from minor blogs or "captive media", so referencing is inadequate. ( "Captive media" are media which are "captured" by the subject of a proposed Wikipedia entry - that is, are directly or indirectly under his control or influence, typically with a view to heightening his perceived importance. In this category are personal webpages and blogs, of course, but also included are the blogs of family ( his wife in this case ) and close friends, technical or professional journals of which the subject is founder, editor, contributor or financial supporter, and indiscriminate newspapers and broadcasters that include press releases from the subject or his representatives virtually verbatim. When we carry out an AfD debate like this we are trying to avoid Wikipedia being "captured" for public relations purposes, or to advance an individual's personal agenda or career. ) WMMartin 18:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should also note that the fact that this debate has now been referenced in the Washington Post is a successful example of media capture, as it will contribute to the blurring of the lines between notability and non-notability. Hatch68 is correct when he says that this does not make Dallman notable. We need to nip this sort of thing in the bud. WMMartin 18:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The need to counter systematic bias[edit]

User:Hatch68 mentions that no one seems to be able to come up with reliable, verifiable sources to demonstrate notability (for Dallman).

And this is my counter argument, that what Hatch68 has said re the Dallman bio applies in a much broader manner, and reflects an unavoidable and non-intentioned bias among Wikipedians, every one of whom has the very best of intentions. After all, how does one define notability? Who sets the standards? And how do we avoid these standards simply perpetuated the already established bias and over-emphasis in certain (albeit very worthy) subjects and perspectives, to the detriment of other (equally worthy) subjects and perspectives?

I'll give an example. I wrote a stubby bio page on David Grimaldi, co-author of Evolution of the Insects, an important textbook and definitive popular review of Paleoentomology. At some point this page seems to have disappeared. What were the reasons why he was considered non-notable?

Yet at the same time there are entries on every detail of pop sci fi franchises (less so serious SF). I'll pick a page at random: List of Star Wars comic books. Every comic book and every author listed. Now, mind you, I strongly support this!!! I think it is way cool the way that Wikipedia does list every character and detail and comic book, no matter how non-notable they may be to anyone outside that particular area of geekdom!

In fact, this was one of the main things that inspired me to write entries on Paleontological authors like Grimaldi, on Integral artists like Dallman, and on Integral theory critics and sceptics like Geoff Falk, in the first place. Surely all these people are at least just as notable as an obscure planet or character in the Star Trek or Doctor Who franchises, say. btw, ST and Dr Who rock!, I'm not dissing these shows, I grew up watching the original series of Star Trek and the early Doctor Whos, there were among the things that really got me interested in SF; but i'm just trying to make a point. I could draw similar examples from anywhere in Wikipedia. And what all this means is that Wikipedia is essentially a biased coverage, and that to Wikipedia's credit this is recognised. I argue here that the Dallman page should be kept, and the Grimaldi and Falk pages restored, as a way of helping to balance the unavoidable and unintentional bias that this vast and magnificent project has. M Alan Kazlev 21:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument has valid points, but it does not belong on this page. This discussion is simply to reach a consensus on whether the Matthew Dallman article has enough verifiable references of notability to maintain its inclusion on Wikipedia. I would suggest you make your arguments on the discussion pages of WP:Bio or WP:Notability. Hatch68 22:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if your Grimaldi article got caught up in this conflict which appears to be in regard to a different David Grimaldi. — goethean ॐ 22:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

M Alan Kazlev appears to be attempting to argue that to govern an encyclopaedia in a manner that ensures that it is encyclopaedic is to show a systematic bias against subjects that are not encylopaedic. This debate has nothing to do with bias and everything to do with notability. Perhaps he is not aware of the other wikis which may more suitably house this type of information. He may also wish to think about the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions - the presence of sf pages in wikipedia does not make Dallman notable. An RS would do but there isn't one. --Backface 00:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.