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. I find no consensus for a merge/redirect. I am particularly persuaded by 28byte's remarks about the "problems with piecing together a biographical article about someone about whom no proper biography has been written in reliable sources. You get woefully incomplete and outdated scraps of information that do not cohere into a proper, comprehensive narrative about the man’s life and career." We should take this into consideration for all BLP articles, frankly. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:03, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ira Brad Matetsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I know this subject has survived a previous AfD, but the last one was six years ago and I think the project has leaned a bit more deletionist over time in regards to BLPs. This is something I've run into a few times myself in a Wikipedia-related context (I nominated myself for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hannah Clover and I have written an article about a different Wikipedian since then that I actually think meets our current notability requirements). I think Matetsky's biography is a lot like mine... in that we're not really notable. I took a look at the cited references and the closest any of them gets to WP:GNG is the Princeton one here. My short-lived biography also only had one SIGCOV reference at the time. Everything else is a passing mention. I did my own before and did not find any other sources with more significant coverage (they were just more passing mentions). Deletion might not be the only answer here, a partial merge to the article about ArbCom might make sense, with the subject's name as a redirect. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:08, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Internet. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:08, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Well, if the nom is about making comparisons to other articles (which I don't "think" we normally do) I've seen far fewer references in other articles that have been kept... - jc37 10:29, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jc37: Look at the quality of the references. Most literally just list his name and are directory-like entries on websites. I've definitely seen people compare articles/AfDs in an AfD before to show precedent and differences in regards to level of secondary coverage. I'm going to try and keep my commenting at a minimum here but I hope that people try to distance themselves from the Wikipedia aspect and just see this as a normal biography. Is there enough coverage for a standalone biography? I don't think so. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:50, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sorry, but I disagree with your "hand wave" assessment of the page's sources.

  That said, "standalone" biography? Are you intimating that you want to see this listified somewhere? - jc37 16:12, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  In that case, I ask you to give me three sources that demonstrate GNG coverage. As for standalone biography, I did mention the possibility of a partial merge (and then redirect) to ArbCom. The passing mentions of this subject are usually in that context. Kind of like how my name is a redirect. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for the clarification. And I see that you adjusted that redirect [1].

  I think there's more to this article than merely his Wikipedia work, notable as it may be.

  Anyway, I really am trying to AGF here, but from what others have noted below, and from the seeming tone of your comments, this is starting to feel like "sour grapes" here.

  I think I'll wait to see what other commenters have to say. - jc37 16:42, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I wasn't referencing that redirect, but the discussion about a standalone article. I'll maintain that this AfD is WP:NOTPOINTY (I'd say everything about that section applies here), but I'm open to other people's perspectives. I started this AfD because I had genuine concerns about notability. I'll note that the previous AfD closed as "no consensus" so it's not like I'm the first person to have this opinion. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I do realize that the timing was probably a dumb decision on my part but it really wasn't intended in any malicious kind of way. I was working on List of Wikipedia people lately. I've been considering the notability of other articles and whether other Wikipedians are notable in their own right. I try really hard not to be a hypocrite and apply consistent standards across the board. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Noting for anyone new to the discussion that I opened this before one of the articles I mention above was nominated for deletion. But I stand by what I said, in that this article really doesn't meet GNG. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Feels a tad bit pointy based on her creation of Tamzin being tagged for notability. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 13:51, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not meant to be pointy, someone mentioned the AfD on the talk page for that article and I think they had a point about notability. I genuinely believe this article isn't notable. The depth of coverage here is even less than that article, which was deleted, so I think that argument holds even more weight. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2025 (UTC), edited 21:43, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, I 100% believe you're acting in good faith here. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 14:08, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete On the whole I find the way redditors are covered compared to Wikipedians disappointing (I think they get more/better press). So I wish someone like Matetsky was notable for his immense contributions to Wikipedia. However, the coverage he has received does not pass notability. None of the sources really offers any indepth biographical coverage of Matetsky. Instead we get passing coverage of him talking about ArbCom, which any number of Wikipedians including myself have, some press coverage of some cases he's been a part of as a lawyer (all lacking WP:SIGCOV of Matetsky as a topic) and various "things on the internet he's done". If this were some 19th Century person I could maybe understand why we would stretch our policies and guidelines to include. But this is a BLP where we shouldn't be stretching things and I do not think he meets our standards for notability and so the right thing would be to delete. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You say "things done on the internet" like it's a bad thing - welcome to the 21st century : )

  Anyway, I think you left out book and magazine editor as well... - jc37 17:57, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No the "journal" is "things done on the internet". This is not some major journal of note or notability and isn't widely indexed. And truthfully that's how I considered the Baker Street publication but if you want to call it a book that's fine. It's a self published one that also id not notable nor convey notability under WP:NBOOK (the SNG I personally work with the most) Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:16, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Mysterious Press is self-publishing? - jc37 21:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Not sure where you're getting Mysterious Press from, but both the Baker Street Almanac and the Greenbag Almanac are published by Greenbag.org, which may not necessarily be self-published, but is a minuscule press, and its publications are unlikely to come close to WP:NBOOK. Contributing to an almanac (or being on its editorial or advisory board) isn't usually considered notable unless the almanac itself is considered notable. Risker (talk) 23:58, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks jc37 and Risker. The danger of trying to get a comment out quickly rather than giving it the time it deserved. I should have written "It's published by a micro poss that is also not one that conveys notability under WP:NBOOK..." Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:03, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  My apologies, let me clarify: I "found" Mysterious Press by looking at the page's references. Here's the link to the company's page: [2]. Here's a link describing them by their current owner: [3] - Mysterious Press was founded in 1975, and was sold to Warner Books in 1989. And here the "about" page for the current parent company: [4]]. I hope this helps. Happy reading : ) - jc37 15:50, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair enough. I can't open any of the links to Mysterious Press, my security system says it's a corrupted website; and its current owner, Penzler Press, doesn't include the book in its catalogue (nor NYB as one of its authors, but as an editor he probably wouldn't be). Is editing a non-notable compilation a criterion for notability? Risker (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Barnes and Noble showing it for sale: [5]. (tried to add Amazon link, but it wouldn't save) - jc37 21:57, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Very nice. Is the book notable? Are there multiple reviews of it, by reputable sources? Risker (talk) 07:47, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the article, keep Newyorkbrad. There are almost no circumstances in which I would consider a Wikipedia editor to be notable, unless they already met notability standards in whatever they do outside of Wikipedia; editing Wikipedia, receiving a Wikipedia/Wikimedia award, being on an Arbcom, or even being quoted in a journalistic article about Wikipedia/Wikimedia does not and should not cross the notability threshold. Risker (talk) 23:58, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm going to expand here, because I do not see how we would consider Ira Brad Matetsky a notable author/editor; neither the works he has published/edited/written nor the journals/almanacs/books he has worked on meet our notability thresholds. I have absolutely no doubt that he is an excellent and highly professional lawyer; nonetheless, his work in this field would not meet our notability thresholds. And I think that it is actually a little bit insulting to the hundreds of thousands of Wikipedians, including many who have been more productive, and have produced more work that has been read by more people than all of the Arbcom pages put together, to suggest that Newyorkbrad is a lynchpin of the project. I say this as someone who has worked closely with NYB, knows him personally as Ira Brad and has enjoyed the pleasure of his company on several occasions, and holds him in the highest personal regard. He is a really good person, and he's done good work here. But none of this makes him notable, and we wouldn't even be having this discussion if he wasn't a popular and well-respected colleague of ours; that article would have been delete years ago. We really do need to stop this navel-gazing. Risker (talk) 07:47, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge to some kind of list or meta-article about Wikipedians/Arbcom. Andre🚐 00:37, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per jc37. Serial (speculates here) 15:23, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Changed from: "Keep per WP:CREATIVE because, due to his extensive ArbCom tenure covering the relatively early years of Wikipedia and extending into more mature years, which has received a fair amount of coverage, and he was the longest-serving member, and he participated in at least one notable case ("notable" meaning: a case about which there is an article—Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia), and having played a significant role in a notable event on Wikipedia—the discovery of the Jar'Edo Wens hoax (he deleted the hoax), he has played a sufficiently significant role in co-creating the significant and well-known collective work which is Wikipedia (and Wikipedia has been the primary subject of multiple etcetera etcetera) for that role to be considered major and for this article to have some encyclopedic worth. To add: It's possible to write the article, and the article speaks for itself."—Alalch E. 22:59, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • After thinking a bit more about it, I'm switching to delete, as I no longer believe that it's possible to write a reasonable article. While there are corporate biographies, we can't rely on them to the degree needed to flesh out the legal career portion of the article, and mentioning just one case is unsatisfactory.—Alalch E. 09:12, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Carrite (talk) 23:20, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please assume good faith... starship.paint (talk / cont) 08:34, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was VERY polite. For you, this: this is a bad faith nomination in the wake of the Tamzin deletion, in my estimation. The end. Carrite (talk) 04:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      @Carrite, this AfD started 17 hours before Tamzin's AfD started. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:41, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'd like to give the benefit of the doubt to everyone here. I'll remind folks that the initiator of this AfD had a BLP written about her which she herself put up for AfD as she doesn't think she's notable enough for an article, so notability of individual Wikipedians is definitely something to which she has given some serious thought. People can disagree with her assessment, and that's entirely fair. At the same time, Carrite, at the previous AfD for this article, you voted to delete. Could you help us to understand in what way the article has been improved sufficient for you to decide it should be kept this time? I'm not trying to be pointy here, but I think you're only person who's participated in both AfDs, so understanding your change in position may be important for other participants. Risker (talk) 04:53, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can't see how this article meets notability requirements. As per Risker, Delete the article, keep Newyorkbrad. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 07:19, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. As the article subject, I am neutral, but have posted some thoughts here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Just to summarize NYB's salient points here because they feel worth being considered when weighting consensus:

  • He is, as he writes above, neutral about whether he should have an article
  • He notes that he has an article because of his ArbCom work and notes the ways that the sources inadequately source the fact that he is the longest serving Arb and how it now only says this as of 2018 because that's what the WSJ said.
  • The article gives little coverage to his work as a litigator and suggests his career can be summarized by having lost one case over a long career
  • Notes issues with the 2016 "as of" description of involvement in a literary society
  • Fails to include his newest Sherlock book (even while claiming it would bore many people)
  • Concludes with knowledge that his article isn't likely to be vandalized but other similarly notable, or non-notable, BLP may not be so lucky.

  I think I'm fairly summarizing what he wrote there and for me the top line statement that he is claiming to be neutral as an article subject gives rise to a lot of actual concerns as an article subject about the article, which maybe aren't collectively best addressed at an AfD, but do (I feel) deserve weight and consideration when assessing the consensus here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:GNG: the sources either contain no significant coverage of the subject or are not independent of him. I join with the others above in saying that deletion would not be a reflection of Newyorkbrad as a member of our online community. arcticocean ■ 19:23, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per jc37 and Alalch E. --JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 19:28, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to Delete. Really falls on the edge and looking at it over again, I can't say for certain that this subject is notable per our standards. --JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 00:55, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I like Newyorkbrad, and think he has been an outstanding arb (if not the best) for his work ethic, logic, cogent writing, and perhaps most importantly, empathy. If having a BLP were a reward for being an outstanding Wikipedian, he would absolutely deserve it. But it’s kind of the opposite, isn’t it? Please, please, please read the thoughts he lays out at User:Newyorkbrad/Newyorkbradblog#Thoughts from an AfD subject to understand the problems with piecing together a biographical article about someone about whom no proper biography has been written in reliable sources. You get woefully incomplete and outdated scraps of information that do not cohere into a proper, comprehensive narrative about the man’s life and career. He deserves better than that. If and when there are reliable sources that are sufficient to form a better, more complete picture than is available now, then it would make sense to consider a BLP. But — going solely by the sources — we’re not there yet. 28bytes (talk) 04:01, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the excellent reasons NYB provided in his "blog". Marginally notable NOTEable people with very little actual public info available should not have articles. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  In response to relisting below, I really do not think it should be a redirect to any target. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• For borderline BLPs, consider what the subject prefers. In this case he seems to favor deletion. Jehochman ^Talk 04:47, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Does he favour it? He has said I am staying neutral on whether the article should be kept or deleted which is very difficult to interpret other than as declining to take a position… arcticocean ■ 09:05, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  With BLPs we should take the most cautious approach. He’s formally neutral but Ira’s comments read like a delete argument. Jehochman ^Talk 16:14, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you both for your interest in my opinion. I did not mean to express a preference for keeping or deletion, but I can see why my comments might be read as doing so; I'll post a few words of clarification there this afternoon I've posted a few more thoughts, though I don't know that they'll help anyone. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Reviewing the sources in the article, I think they probably are enough to meet the GNG. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:34, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I might get flack for this relisting but I noted in their nomination statement that the nominator suggested a Redirect or Merge to Arbitration Committee (Wikipedia) or, on the other hand, List of Wikipedia people. I'm a big believer in ATD so I am hoping that participants might consider these options along with Delete/Keep choices. This AFD discussion can be closed at any time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:58, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I've looked at several articles in Category:Wikipedia people, and this seems better referenced than several of those. Are we comparing what jobs people do outside of Wikipedia and saying that one job is better - more notable - than another? Anyway, Iff no consensus to keep, I suggest "Draftify". Several above (including NYB's comments) have suggested that it might be develop-able. And in the meantime, regardless of outcome here, it wouldn't be a bad idea to copy anything relevant to Arbitration Committee (Wikipedia) and List of Wikipedia people. I wonder if NYB would like to be added to Wikipedia:Facebook directory? - jc37 17:06, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Neither redirect is appropriate. Matetsky is not mentioned anywhere in the ArbCom article - correctly so in my opinion. List of Wikipedia people is reserved for notable people. If Matetsky is notable he should be included on there and his article kept. If he's not notable - which is my contention and seemingly the consensus reached here - he does not meet the inclusion criteria of the list and thus it should not link there. Neither option addresses the many BLP concerns expressed here. It is not an appropriate redirect in my opinion and I rejected that option when making my initial !vote for delete but decided the additional words were unneeded because I was making clear why deletion was what was appropriate. Note: I have also raised objections on Liz's user talk with this relist as this seems like a supervote and she has a COI with Arbitration Committee (Wikipedia) as a sitting member of the committee. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:21, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sure Liz will respond to your queries on their talk soon; they have, after all, made nearly 100 edits since the question was raised this afternoon. Serial (speculates here) 20:28, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I relisted this discussion. Thus ended my involvement with this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:16, 12 February 2025 (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.