Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt carson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 due to current lack of sources. No prejudice against re-creation if sources appear in the future, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. — TKD::Talk 07:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Matt carson

Matt carson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

A biography about an individual who does not meet biography notability guidelines. Couldn't find enough reliable sources for verification. I also couldn't find any notable book reviews, despite the claims the article makes.[1] Wafulz 13:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I did a Google search for "On A Hill They Call Capital" review and all I could find was this, which isn't a review, but contains two excerpts from purported reviews... Odd that those reviews cited can't be found elsewhere. "Matt Carson" review didn't turn up much either, other than an Amazon link to buy the book. I would lean toward Delete if other sources, or at least the reviews that supposedly exist, can't be found. Leebo T/C 13:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article was also rejected by articles for creation because it only provided Amazon as a source.-Wafulz 13:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. It might be too early to keep this page. The reviews were early reviews which publishers request for the purpose of placing them on the book jacket but typically don't appear in the publication until the book is released and it's technically only available for pre-orders on amazon.com - the book release date is sometime this Fall. I guess i'd recommend removing the page until the reviews are published this Fall. Ron20186 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.161.53.95 (talk • contribs) 13:56, August 2, 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Actually, my two cents here, I'd recommend keeping the page and here's why; While it is true that most of Carson's reviews won't appear in print until mid-September they are real and Joel Garreau of The Washington Post and of The Garreau Group "Garreau.com" can be contacted to verify the legitimacy of the book and the review. I will gather the contact information for Jeff Tietz of the Rolling Stone who's also reviewed the book among others. But, other than that Carson is kind of a cult personality, and while his celebrity status nationwide is slowly growing he's most certainly a celebrity in his home state of Virginia - other than being a successful author he's the founder of one of the largest privately held web development firms in the country, SiteWhirks, and appeared in the Men of Rappahannock County calendar which gained national media attention "article here" and is known as a celebrity as evidence by this article when he guest bartended to help Habitat for Humanity "article here". I am currently also in the process of gathering articles from his time at WVU where he became an icon for preserving the rights of partiers and his articles in one of the largest school papers in the country were syndicated, this part is slightly time consuming as the Internet wasn't well established while he was in school there and as such online archives are unavailable. I will be posting here over the next few days as I gather more documentation to support my 'two cents.' I am Carson's publicist if you're wondering where such a supportive voice comes from. Erika Hammond, Amp —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.161.53.95 (talk • contribs) 14:40, August 2, 2007 (UTC)
  • Note that the above 2 comments are from the same user. Leebo T/C 14:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • If the reviews won't be made available until the fall, then wait until the fall. We cannot print material unless it is freely verifiable by anyone at anytime. The verifiability policy states "any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." If he's on the up-and-coming, that's great, but we should really wait until the print sources are out. Also, it's generally a bad idea to write articles about subjects where you have a conflict of interest.-Wafulz 15:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: If the article's jumped the gun, it's a good idea to shoot it - and a bad idea to have your publicist contribute to it. Sidatio 16:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. No preemptive articles should be encouraged. 6thAvenue 16:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - right now, I see very minimal notability for this author; his first novel appears to have been self-published, and I can't really find much information about the next one. If it's reviewed, and picks up some steam when it's released, then maybe it might bring some notability; for now, it's a little bit on the WP:CRYSTAL side to have this article. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:49, 2 August 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.