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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 13:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Tye[edit]

Matthew Tye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Contested CSD. Article covers a student. Asserted basis for notability includes (1) an incident with an archbishop. Verified, but his role is not substantial; (2) forming the "Vietnam Academic Network". No WP:RS found; refs given are only to primary sources (press releases, &c.). (3) receiving an allegedly prestigious fellowship and studying under a well-known professor. Hardly basis for notability. GNews returned a few hits, most arising from the archbishop incident. Tim Song (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at the primary source material but they seem to confirm the existence of such a network.
Agree with you on 3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.27.57 (talk) 17:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP1E seems to control w/r/t to 1, as the archbishop incident does not appear to be that important. As to 2, I don't doubt the VAN's existence, but it does not appear to be notable. The founder of a nonnotable organization is not notable. Tim Song (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Not sure why the archbishop incident is not that important because it was reported by the main mmedia agencies —Preceding unsigned comment added by BirminghamAV (talk • contribs) 18:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are talking about my comment. Regrettably, I'm no admin. :( The archbishop incident is not that important as to justify ignoring the general WP:BLP1E rule. Normally a single event is insufficient to justify a whole article on a participant. This is not on par with the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan, the example given in the policy where a standalone article is appropriate. I said 'allegedly' because there's no secondary source cited in the article concerning how prestigious the award is. Every award would like to label itself as prestigious, that does not mean it is actually prestigious. Tim Song (talk) 19:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes perphaps this article is not all there, but somehow I think we'll see seeing and hearing a lot more from this guy in the future, thenWiki might consider doing a page!--77.98.27.57 (talk) 18:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)--77.98.27.57 (talk) 18:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As to the Churchill award, the cited sources came from him or his school. That's not very reliable. That he might be notable in the future is insufficient to justify inclusion. WP:CRYSTAL.Tim Song (talk) 19:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like nothing he's done is worth anything - or the archbishop incident. Should a section be created under Vincent nichols --77.98.27.57 (talk) 19:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)the archbishop) then??[reply]
I'd like to see David Eppstein try for a Fellowship at age 21 - when the Society has a policy to only award them to those over 25 years of age. This kid has done something remarkable and he has been righly awarded this fellowship. Get your facts right too - there are 27,000 fellows around the world and this includes all those who are alive

Who becomes a Fellow?

Fellows have typically achieved or show the potential to achieve against the following criteria:

--77.98.27.57 (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)--77.98.27.57 (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think everyone is missing the point about RSA fellow - their standard regulations means now-one can become a fellow before the age of 25, but this guy has achieved it aged 21. That's something - and they have elected him for the reasons the article outline.
Dispute the incident with the Archbishop - because it reached the international press - we are not talking just about he UK media
Someone shoudl add the Turkish link please; [1]--77.98.27.57 (talk) 08:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No - I have no relation to the subject. If you check carefully, those were minor edits like changing a word or two. The article has been drastically revised by someone not connected to the subject EALacey. I think you need to read again about the archbishop incident and understand what it was all about. There is nothing dubious at all. Anyway - this guy has a long track record. How can wiki justify having others on its pages that meet no criteria at all - like a swimmer for instance whose won no medals etc etc and this guy whos long track record goes back you don't like? Tell me what have you got against his achievements, notability and constant occurance in the media??? Please justify yoursefl 77.98.27.57 (talk) 11:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I note that my question was replied to by EALacey and not by 77.98.27.57, a UK IP. Are EALacey and 77.98.27.57 one and the same? Xxanthippe (talk).
Actually, it was 77.98.27.57 who replied to your question. See this diff. I presume you were misled by the fact (s)he wrote a two-paragraph reply, ending the first paragraph with my username. (I've taken the liberty of combining the two paragraphs.) I am not 77.98.27.57 and I disagree with most of what (s)he has said. EALacey (talk) 05:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]


Nothing that justify's its existence - why have you just contradicted yourself by saying there is a lot of sourced material???
The page now has been edited to include his track record - in the media and out! He didn't join a society for the arts (FSA) - he was 'elected' after being recommended by the Churchill trustees. This is not some guy who goes around seeking fame (unlike some).
Your fact is also wrong that he had an argument with a cleric. Instead this was a major national religious controversy - see the news archives for that, with Turkisk and Chinese press doind articles to. That alone is justification for it to be kept.
His teen work is notable but you 'don't think it's quite enough'. How about do nothing - don't do anything for the community and laze around all day. I think you treat this guy with contempt. It is apparent from checking on the wiki history that the user david eppstein has been involved in a number of spurious and off the cuff attempts to get pages deleted without good reasons. If this article was rubbish then it should be deleted - but clearly not and he has done a lot. Why knock him back for that kind of notability - in the press, in the academic field and in the community??? At one point the article was just about the peter jennings controversy but wiki users have independently reshaped the whole thing. good on them--BirminghamAV (talk) 20:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC) — BirminghamAV (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I dissociate myself from the above comments. David Eppstein is an energetic and productive editor on these pages with formidable qualifications himself. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
I don't think he is claiming academic notability - and the waters seem unclear now as to wether the article falls under - academics, news, celebrity or other.--77.98.27.57 (talk) 19:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]

Article should be removed from list of academic to be deleted discussions as the subject is not claiming academic notability--BirminghamAV (talk) 21:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have struck out your keep comment because you already had a keep earlier. Although AfDs are not a vote, you should still include at most one boldfaced "keep" or "delete". —David Eppstein (talk) 04:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
   * If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.[6]
   * Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.
  • KEEP - Wow! What a discussion. Though its hard to see clearly because everyone is contesting different points. This article does not read as promotional and the sourcing is good. It does meet the Wiki criteria on expanding knowledge and this article has successfully done that on this subject. His name returns 417,000 hits on the Google - although not all (if only a small percentage) relate to the subject. But his community acivity is a recurrent theme.
I agree with others that the fellowship awards have to be contested, though sourcing would solve this problem.--WikiKing2012 (talk) 20:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC) — WikiKing2012 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment. The awards themselves are not being contested, so sourcing is not the relevant issue. It is the notability that these awards would help to confer upon the subject that is being challenged, quite successfully I would say. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 21:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
It's not even as notable as that. The archbishop was only present during the course of the argument with somebody else. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

If that is the case then a section should be merged onto th archbishops page - as all the independent news coverage is verified and from reliable main-stream sources.

I would still contest that the awards are not notable. There is one 'local'award, the rest are national and international. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.27.57 (talk) 07:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archbishop incident - notable enough to make mainstream media headlines. Nobdoy has nominated him for historical notability. Again there seem to be some contemptous views on here about what a young person can can't can be recognised for. --BirminghamAV (talk) 07:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should read WP:NOTNEWS? Tim Song (talk) 08:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks: "Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic" - this justified both an article on the Archbishop incident and another separate one on the subject.

Perhaps you will now stop harassing this article and its subject whom you have no relation to. If you can justify why this article should be deleted then sensibly say so, if not, stop wasting peoples time with patheticness--BirminghamAV (talk) 09:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


If anybody cares to carefully check out the nominator for deletion - Tim Song, he has been involved in countless attempts for speedy deletion. These have been declined as the material has been verified.

I should also note that he has a subjective interest against the subject re the archbishop incident. He tried to establish a St Ann's page but this was declined. I sujest if people cannot remain neutral and hold their religious views to one side then they should not be commenting. Wiki's policy is that some material may offend others (e.g. sexual) but this is no justification for its removal--BirminghamAV (talk) 10:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While we are engaged in detective work I note that BirminghamAV created the Matthew Tye page and has made no edits outside that subject. Matthew Tye lives in Birmingham. Is there a connection? Xxanthippe (talk) 11:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment. The preceding entry by Johnuniq seems to be the most accurate and concise description of this case. The closing admin should please read it carefully. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

The 'closing admin'??????? - you're so dead set against this article that you've already decided that it should be deleted. Well let me tell you this, the article meets numerous criteria. It has not claimed academic notability but basic notability. The very fact that this extensive discussion has gone on has shown how contenious the subject is. --77.98.27.57 (talk) 15:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Yes, "the closing admin". This individual will read this whole debate, evaluating all the points, and make a closing decision. And, yes, you restate the obvious in "you've already decided that it should be deleted" – I said so above in no uncertain terms and gave what I feel are pretty good supporting arguments. With all due respect, the emotional tone of some of the "keep" votes here and WP:SPA nature of some the accounts suggests that these commentators are ignorant of the way the AfD process actually works. I'm afraid emotion does not typically carry much weight. The merits and supporting facts, cold and unemotional as they may be, will hold far more sway. Again, with all due respect, comments that ratchet-up the emotional, combative tone of the debate are very likely to only hurt your cause. The fact of the matter is that the subject of the article is a student and, while his early accomplishments are impressive within the context of being a student, they do not rise above what a very long and established consensus here on WP considers to be notable without the constraints of such context. I'm sorry that this position does not accord with some of the views here, but my experience with these sorts of AfDs indicates this one will very likely end in a "delete". Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

The AfD process was initiated by an individual who has subjective interests against the subject. He has failed to disasociate himself. The fact of the matter is the subject is a student - correct, but also a celebrity, and also a person involved in constsitently in the media headline and also an exceptional track record. If this article ends in a delete then there are a zillion (yes - zillion) other non-notable articles that need to be taken off the site. At the end of the day, if people want to be bitter that is their problem, wiki editors should be proactively doing constructive engagements with the site. --BirminghamAV (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I would humbly suggest that as WP currently has less than 3m articles, it would probably be very difficult to remove "a zillion"--Saalstin (talk) 18:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A note on the Archbishop's dinner: The story I get from the media references in the Matthew Tye article is that at a Catholic Church dinner in the presence of an archbishop a church worker verbally abused Tye, allegedly calling him "a worthless s****". The church worker claims that he had been goaded into responding when Tye had been telling people at the dinner that the worker had been sacked from a previous job. Tye denies saying that. Tye then complained to the archbishop, the worker and the police, who declined to act. It is not known who leaked the scandal to the media. Tye's letter to the archbishop was also leaked to the media. There is clearly more than one side to the story but the Matthew Tye article paints Tye as the blameless victim. This is another deficiency of the article but, as it is likely to be deleted soon, I will leave it alone. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:03, 5 August 2009 (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.
More