Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Mastro

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 no consensus. This discussion is a classic example of why we need a stable notability guideline for businessmen. Mackensen (talk) 23:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Mastro

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

Fails WP:NOTABLE, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:ONEEVENT Not encyclopedic, just a run of the mill news story. If Michael Mastro had been notable in his own right, this would rate a mention on his article. But there is nothing to warrant a separate article. Harry the Dog WOOF 14:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Background (by article creator) This article started its life as The Bankruptcy and extradition of Michael Mastro. It was moved to "Michael Mastro" by an editor who replaced the stub template and plastered the article with several "multiple issues" tags. The article’s new name does not represent the contents of the article, but since I am not endowed with article-moving rights on Wikipedia, I was not able to revert this move - and had to ask this editor to revert his move. Instead of reverting the move a discussion has been initiated on the talkpage. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a run-of-the-mill news story no matter what the page is titled. Nowhere near the level of notability required for an article. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 16:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and also because WP:NOT#NEWS. §FreeRangeFrog 19:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I moved the page after that I "replaced the stub template and plastered the article with several "multiple issues" tags", yes it was me. I questioned all along whether someone should have a separate article about something that happened to them without actually having a biographical article behind it. So that was the basis of the move. After reading some of the discussion on the talk page I may have been wrong, still doesn't really make a lot of sense to me, so I was getting close to wiping my hands of the situation and reverting the move and letting someone else do whatever they wanted (discussion would be moot if the belligerent pulled out, wouldn't it?). But now the article has been nominated for deletion (by someone else I might add), I agree that the article fails to meet WP:BIO and should be deleted. If the person was notable for being a "real estate developer who was in business for forty years managing apartments and midsize office parks in Seattle" then they would be worthy of the article. -- Patchy1 23:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

without actually having a biographical article behind it -- Don't tell us you still haven't understood WP:BLP1E. There are many articles about notable single events involving otherwise non-notable people. Some of those articles have made it to featured status.

The articles (as you correctly say) are about the events, not the non-notable people who had a part to play in those events. If Mastro had been involved in the moon landings he could be mentioned in an article about the moon landings without necessarily meriting a stand-alone article on himself. Harry the Dog WOOF 09:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So I presume you support the move request? --87.79.128.230 (talk) 06:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So that was the basis of the move. -- In other words, your move had no basis.

If the person was notable for being a "real estate developer who was in business for forty years managing apartments and midsize office parks in Seattle" then they would be worthy of the article. -- Again, WP:BLP1E. Ian Tomlinson as a person is clearly not notable; but the circumstances of his death clearly are. You are "arguing" in full ignorance of Wikipedia policy and encyclopedic best practice. --87.78.237.22 (talk) 20:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the title of that article refers to the event (a person's death in questionable circumstances which resulted in massive media coverage and a trial). It's not about the person himself. Tomlinson was not notable as a person before that event, and he is not notable now as a person, because he has done nothing notable. Harry the Dog WOOF 09:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a request to move the article to Bankruptcy and extradition of Michael Mastro. --87.79.128.230 (talk) 06:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, WP:BLP1E. He is not a notable person, so his bankruptcy and extradition are not notable. Harry the Dog WOOF 08:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You still don't get it. Ian Tomlinson was not a notable person. The circumstances of his death are clearly notable though. The person and the events surrounding them are distinct topics. Michael Mastro may not be notable, but that does not automatically mean that the events surrounding him are not notable either. One plus one equals two. I don't know how this could be explained any clearer. Unless you are deliberately refusing to understand this, you should now know the difference. I hope. --78.35.240.67 (talk) 02:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You Wikipedia editors are so full of yourselves and self-centered. I was reading an article about Mastro in the local (Seattle) paper and decided to learn more from Wikipedia. I landed on this entry and discovered the article is set for deletion for some typical BS rules as interpreted by self-absorbed editors. What a disaster Wikipedia has become. Thankfully you don't get paid for for being completely detached from the millions of potential Wikipedia users who expect something other than editorial self-aggrandizement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.200.212 (talk) 00:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your valuable contributions to this discussion, Wikipedia needs more helpful people like you to make it better! -- Patchy1 02:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BITE, WP:NPA. --87.78.237.22 (talk) 20:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How cute. You come in here acting like you know everything and get called on the carpet for your silliness. So of course, your response is throw a bunch of policies in our face. Well, here's something for you: That no personal attacks policy also applies to your claims that "You Wikipedia editors are so full of yourselves and self-centered." As another IP said below, to the wrong person I might add, "Just refrain from personal attacks and that's that." AutomaticStrikeout 19:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a tech-savvy internet user, I presume you're aware of services like WhoisIP, right? So why don't you first check 98.237.200.212 against 87.78.237.22 (e.g. using cqcounter.com/whois) before jumping to demonstrably false conclusions? --87.79.128.230 (talk) 06:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What does that service have to do with anything? I don't need to be tech-savvy to see that you have a very confrontational tone and you don't seem to realize that your original post was a very wide-spread personal attack that assumed bad faith on the part of quite a few people. AutomaticStrikeout (Evidence) 15:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Using that tool would show you that 98.237.200.212 and 87.78.237.22 (the latter being me) are different people, as one IP traces to the United States and the other to Germany. The original comment which you complain about is not mine. I merely warned Patchy1 against violating BITE and NPA. --78.35.240.67 (talk) 02:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I now see what you are saying. Yes, I made a bad assumption and for that I apologize. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 05:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you are not a tech-savvy internet user, because you havn't figured out how to log in, which is obviously simpler than anyone else going to the trouble of tracking your IP. (oh by the way that wasn't a personal attack, just an observation). -- Patchy1 08:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I'm feeding the trolls here, but just for accuracy's sake, let me pile on a well-deserved warning against assuming bad faith. You assumed, when you not only had no reason to do so but the immediate option to test and falsify that hypothesis, that the original IP commenter and me (the guy who warned you) are the same person. --78.35.240.67 (talk) 02:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, we goofed. Still, given that you were the one to bring up the personal attack policy, why are you calling us trolls? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 05:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes thank you for underscoring just how clever all you self important editors really are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.194.238.3 (talk) 03:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removing content not at all relevant to the discussion regarding the article. -- Patchy1 04:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, buddy. You can not just strike comments willy-nilly. You are welcome to retract your personal attacks and hope that the other IP responds in kind. Do not do this again. Just refrain from personal attacks and that's that. --213.168.89.157 (talk) 04:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take your own advice buddy. AutomaticStrikeout 19:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, respectfully whatever. --87.79.128.230 (talk) 06:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be thankful he did not completely erase it Ottawahitech (talk) 16:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as run-of-the-mill news story with no lasting impact or notability -- regardless of the move request: Neither Mastro nor the story surrounding him are notable. The low level of participation in this AfD alone guarantees that the article would forever sit there without substantial improvements. The little media buzz is over and new info will at best trickle in and more likely stop completely. --87.79.96.143 (talk) 18:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I realize that my comments will continue to be ignored because:
- I am a nobody at Wikpedia whose article-moving-rights have been stripped
- I am this article's "creator"

However I would still like to have my say just in case some time in the future sense will start to prevail.

There are three criteria used as justification in this deletion nomination:

As far as notability is concerned this article which is about the "biggest bankruptcy case in the history of Washington state" relies on NINE independent reliable secondary sources and dozens of references - can someone please explain to me once more how this fails wp:notable?
The second and third criteria are not applicable in this case since this article is NOT a biography. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 19:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above and I would like to know why this is not a biography? AutomaticStrikeout 19:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- @AutomaticStrikeout, It is its probably against wiki-etiquette for me to answer your question, but since no one else did, here it is: Your question leads me to believe that you have not noticed the Background (by article creator) and the associated link provided earlier in this discussion. Am I right? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I still don't see how this is not a biography. It's an article about a person, isn't it? AutomaticStrikeout 19:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please actually read the move request section at the article talk page. It happens to be very pertinent to your point. The request is to move the article to Bankruptcy and extradition of Michael Mastro along the lines of other BIO1E articles like Death of Ian Tomlinson. --87.79.128.230 (talk) 06:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - The death of Ian Tomlinson was a major event, resulting in massive news coverage, resignations, a trial of a serving police officer, changes in how the police operate etc. etc. This is basically a run-of-the-mill news event that will be forgotten as soon as the news coverage peters out. Mastro is not notable, and his bankruptcy is not notable according to Wikipedia policy. Harry the Dog WOOF 08:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This person is relatively unknown. certainly not notable. Fails WP:BIO PS:I'm a nobody too, without article-moving rights. :) --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Buggie111 (talk) 20:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Rename - to something relating to the WP:EVENT rather than the person. There are plenty of WP articles about events, rather than the individuals involved. If people contend that it is the event that is notable, rather that the person, then there might be a case for an event-related article, provided the reliable sources are there to back it up. Without WP:OTHERSTUFFING this too much, please see Conrad Murray and Trial of Conrad Murray as an example. The person doesn't have to be individually notable for the event itself to be notable. But if there's no appetite for an event-related article, this biographical article should be deleted (per AutomaticStrikeout above). Stalwart111 00:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Since this person is the central character in the bankruptcy, it makes sense for the article to be named after the person rather than attempting to make it an article about a news event. Either way, WP:BLP applies just as much, and all statements about living persons need to be sourced. This is a keep for me because there is plenty of information out there to write an article, and certainly to meet WP:BIO. VQuakr (talk) 05:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is at least a notable event with reliable sourcing. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was kind of my point - this is a fairly classic case of WP:BLP1E - the subject is notable because of the one event. He would otherwise be non-notable. But there seems to be no particular reason why we can't have an article about that one event. Stalwart111 02:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, WP:BIO1E applies more - particularly the paragraph about the person having a major role in a minor event. There is no reason an article that describes the more general events related to the person, cannot bear the name of that person. In any case, that is a discussion for the article talk page and another move discussion and should not have any bearing on whether the article is kept/deleted. Based on your response, can you consider updating your delete !vote above? VQuakr (talk) 02:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Get entirely where you're coming from. BIO1E, though, says, "Generally in this case, the name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident", which is what I advocated above and is the basis of the Conrad Murray example I gave. My second point, though, was that if people contend that even the event is non-notable (given it is just one of dozens of extradition cases each year which result from various marginally notable crimes) then deleting this article without creating / redirecting / renaming would be fine by me. But I also have no particular objection to such an article (title) being created if others believe otherwise. I suppose it probably shouldn't have been moved in the first place... Stalwart111 02:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename Notable event that shouldn't have been turned into a biography. A good example of why, except in obvious straightforward cases, page moves without prior discussion should be quickly reverted. This AfD was unnecessary and pointless; sadly there's a faction of users who find the best way to build the encyclopedia is to go around looking for things to delete. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to build a quality encyclopedia is to delete articles that do not meet the community's guidelines and policies. Even as an "event", this is non-notable. Thousands of people go bankrupt and commit fraud every day. Harry the Dog WOOF 14:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not the best way to build a quality encyclopedia, and yes, as an event it is notable. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want your comments to be taken seriously, please assume good faith and explain how it is notable based on Wikipedia policies. Just saying "It's notable" isn't enough. Where is the sustained and ongoing coverage in multiple sources, for example? If Wikipedia is full of dross it ceases to be a quality encyclopedia. That's why we have guidelines and policies. Harry the Dog WOOF 14:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Woof. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Harry the Dog, in regards to the "sustained and ongoing coverage in multiple sources" I have already addressed this on Nov 23. Did you see my comment? Ottawahitech (talk) 21:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sustained and ongoing? There has been a blip of media coverage following his arrest (which you picked up on to create the article). A Google search turns up less than a page and a half of news all dating from the beginning to the middle of the month (some of them blogs) and relating to his arrest. This is three years after the main event. It wasn't notable then and it isn't notable now. Harry the Dog WOOF 09:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Harry the Dog, This story(the biggest bankruptcy in the history of Washington State) has been covered at least since 2010 by publications such as the WSJ and at least eight others. What does it take to be considered "Sustained and ongoing"?

Compare the Google hits on Ian Tomlison vs Michael Mastro and you will see the difference. Massive coverage of the Tomlinson story. Pages of results. For Mastro I find mainly blogs (including the WSJ) but no sustained and and ongoing coverage of Mastro or his bankruptcy in mainstream media. A few blogs and the odd newspaper article (none of which confirm the claims about it being the biggest bankruptcy, certainly not in terms of the amount of money unsecured creditors are left owed) do not constitute sustained and ongoing coverage. Harry the Dog WOOF 09:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thousands of people go bankrupt and commit fraud every day. Can you rephrase this in the context of policy and/or notability guidelines? I see you reference three guidelines in your nomination, but they seem rather speciously selected considering the subject appears to meet WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. VQuakr (talk) 16:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that he does meet either of those guidelines. If he did, there would be coverage of all his notable achievements easily found. But he has not achieved anything notable more than any other run-of-the-mill businessman who made a fortune in the good times and lost it when the economy tanked. I have searched high and low for articles called "The bankruptcy of..." and cannot find any. Going bankrupt is not in and of itself notable. Bankruptcies are mentioned in the articles of notable people, but not as separate events for non-notable people. If sources can be found that show Mastro is notable beyond this one thing (which is not in and of itself notable) then by all means he should have an article, and his bankruptcy should be mentioned in it. Harry the Dog WOOF 16:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out where "notable achievements" are listed as criteria at WP:BASIC or WP:GNG? VQuakr (talk) 01:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have to look beyond the basic policies which I did quote in my nom (WP:NOTABLE. In this case, you have to look at events. Clearly Mastro's bankruptcy fails that. And if he is not notable for that, what is he notable for? The policies presuppose that the subject of the article must be notable for something (good or bad), achievements in shorthand. This is a classic example of someone who is temporarily in the news for nothing notable at all, and who isn't otherwise notable.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harry the Dirty Dog (talk • contribs)

This bankruptcy involved a default on over $600 million in debt, so WP:MILL related arguments are not a slam-dunk. Coverage has continued for years, and it is a remarkable stretch to refer to it as a singular event, let alone a "classic" example of temporary coverage. WP:N that you link immediately above includes the general notability guideline, which in my opinion this subject unequivocally meets. VQuakr (talk) 08:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Loads of bankruptcies involve far more money than that. The coverage which caused this article to be created is definitely temporary. Or else it would have been created three years ago. This will fade from public view as most other bankruptcies do, unless they involve notable people. WP:GNG is the bare minimum. That just saves the article from speedy deletion. Beyond that you have to look at [[WP:GNG] in the context of other policies to determine whether it is really notable. Just meeting the basic requirements is not enough. If it fails other policies, it fails WP:NOTABLE. Harry the Dog WOOF 09:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is a novel opinion, but it is not supported by policy, WP:SPEEDY, or the notability guidelines. Loads of bankruptcies involve far more money than that. Ok, name five personal bankruptcies involving larger defaults. VQuakr (talk) 09:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not novel at all. Google the bankruptcy records for yourself. La Toya Jackson is one. There were 1.5 million personal bankruptcies in the US in 2009. You'll find that either those bankrupts are notable people and the bankruptcy is mentioned in their article, or they aren't notable and there is no Wikipedia article called "The Bankruptcy of X". The amount of the bankruptcy is irrelevant. Harry the Dog WOOF 09:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not novel at all. This isn't an argument, it's contradiction. Where, in our policies or guidelines, do you find the material that leads you to believe that the GNG is an invalid "keep" rationale or has anything to do with speedy deletion? Jackson's bankruptcy was over a sum about 1/900th as large as that of the subject here, and Mastro's press coverage has been continuous for years and been far deeper than a routine "so and so filed for bankruptcy." VQuakr (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not novel because GNG doesn't guarantee inclusion. An assertion of notability under GNG is enough to save an article from a speedy but if it still fails other policies it can still be deleted after discussion. That's the whole point of AfDs. As to the amount, I have read that unsecured creditors will be left owed about $250 million - by far not the biggest amount in history. If reliable sources exist to show that it is the biggest bankruptcy in history then Mastro might well be notable as history's biggest individual bankrupt. But I am not seeing that. Harry the Dog WOOF 18:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The best way to build a quality encyclopedia is to delete articles that do not meet the community's guidelines and policies." At worst this is a borderline case. The event has had coverage in reliable news sources. Most bankruptcy and fraud cases don't. Besides that, how exactly is the encyclopedia improved at all by deleting such articles, much less is it the "best way" to improve it? You, I and every other WP user will never, ever see the vast, vast majority of all WP articles. What difference does it make if some of those don't meet the community's guidelines and policies? Much more important, it seems to me, is that information is there for those who are looking for it. And someone could look for information about this case. So what harm is there in leaving it? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but that amounts to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. When we come across such articles we should take what action is needed (improve them, merge them, nominate them for deletion or whatever). This is especially true for borderline BLPs. In this case I decided to seek a community view on deletion because I didn't think it could be improved since I see nothing else that makes Mastro notable. It's well sourced, but at the moment these are only allegations. He is a bankrupt but he hasn't been convicted of anything. Harry the Dog WOOF 20:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you didn't answer my question. How is WP harmed by the continued existence of this article? How is WP improved by its deletion? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't the issue. WP has polices and either articles meet them or they don't. Articles that are questionable are nominated for deletion and the community decides by consensus. The policies are there to ensure that WP remains a quality resource. Harry the Dog WOOF 21:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You made it the issue by contending that deleting such articles is the "best way" to improves the quality of the encyclopedia. How is the quality of WP improved by deleting articles like this one? Or are you backing away from that assertion? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. An encyclopedia can have loads of quality articles but if it is also full of dross, it pulls the whole quality of the enterprise down. That is why we have policies for inclusion. It's not a free for all. A chain is only as strong as the weakest link. The best way to improve the quality of an otherwise sound chain is to get rid of that link. If an article doesn't meet those policies it should go. I was explaining why I nominated it for the community to decide by consensus. The only issue here is whether the article meets the policies for inclusion. The rest is distraction. I do not see how either Mastro or his bankruptcy are notable. Harry the Dog WOOF 06:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOHARM is a poor reason for keeping any article. The particular line of discussion is unlikely to be productive and I respectfully suggest it be dropped. VQuakr (talk) 01:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I respectfully disagree. Any article with potentially useful information that is not harmful is an excellent reason to keep. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harry the Dirty Dog, the basis of your position seems to be, "An encyclopedia can have loads of quality articles but if it is also full of dross, it pulls the whole quality of the enterprise down." Putting aside the question of whether this article qualifies as dross, please explain how articles that are dross "pulls the whole quality of the enterprise down".

I maintain that if WP was frozen as is, but then hundreds or even thousands of dross articles were added, the overall quality would not be lowered, because all of the useful information would still be there. Everyone would still get just as much utility out of WP with or without those dross articles. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well said Born2cycle... not unlike comments from Wikipedia's own founder:

"'I hope someone will create lots of articles about famous dresses,' Wales wrote. 'Our systemic bias caused by being a predominantly male geek community is worth some reflection in this contest. We have nearly 90 articles about Linux distributions… I think we can have an article about this dress. We should have articles about 100 famous dresses.' Wikipedia Founder Jimmy Wales" ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.200.212 (talk) 06:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Objection. I want to formally object to this entire process, since it was started while another discussion about the article (changing its title), was underway. Especially since the current title is the apparent most likely reason many are supporting deletion. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Article has the wrong name" is not a valid reason for deletion, but I do not see where in the discussion that appears to have been a major factor in editors' !votes. I personally think this article should continue be named as a biography per the fourth paragraph of BIO1E, but I seem to be alone in my opinion. VQuakr (talk) 01:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move back to original page, and file another AFD if it still doesn't seem to pass muster there. There seems to be enough news coverage of this event to meet our notability standards, even if some people here find it relatively uninteresting. This definitely should not have been turned into a biography; bad decision by ~~whoever's responsible for that~~ Patchy. Townlake (talk) 14:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No you are not alone, I myself live in Seattle and have been fascinated by the Mastro story as it has emerged, and am dumbfounded by the all-knowing Wikipedia editors living in who knows what parts of the world that don't think this rates as worth the obviously limited ink available on Wikipedia. Whatever - I don't have a dog in this fight but it certainly does make me question the value of Wikipedia as a credible source. As I've said before, I came here seeking more information about Mastro after reading a yet another news update on the case, and was startled to see on this page that so many Wikipedia editors think it's a non-event. They also appear to have an extraordinary amount of time on their hands - which is amusing in and of itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.200.212 (talk) 23:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that when you sarcastically say things like "the all-knowing Wikipedia editors living in who knows what parts of the world", you instantly diminish your credibility in this conversation. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 23:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what the word "credibility" means? Townlake (talk) 02:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking that because you are curious or are you being sarcastic? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need to refresh your understanding of the words, 'sarcastically' and 'sarcastic' because you are using them incorrectly. There is no 'sarcasm' in either of the comments above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.200.212 (talk) 00:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you are Townlake, you have no way of knowing if he was being sarcastic. Neither do I necessarily, that is why I was asking. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 05:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA Guys at least try to keep it civil. -- Later Days! Cameron11598 (Talk) 05:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep It does appear to meet WP:GNG But only by the skin of its teeth --- Later Days! Cameron11598 (Talk) 05:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I take back my former keep reading the above and change it to a delete see WP:NOT#NEWS and it fails to meet WP:PERP & WP:BIO --Later Days! Cameron11598 (Talk) 05:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Unfortuantely neither the article nor the first newspaper cited state the size of the bankruptcy and fraud. The entirety seems to be about whether jewellery worth $1.4M were or were not available to the creditors. Thius seems to me a very routine issue, which has been blown up in the press (at the request of the police), because he had become a fugitive. But for that, it would probably not merited more than a mention in the newspapers. WP:NOTNEWS. If the article is to remain at its present location, we need a full biography. If not, it should be moved back or deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (gas) @ 11:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your assessment that the reliable sources are solely about jewelry or the extradition. For example coverage from 2009 discusses a bit of his background and the fact that he owed creditors over 600 million. An article in Forbes from 2011 also predates the extradition, though the author suggests that leaving the country is one of few options left to the subject. These are two examples out of many; coverage is not limited to the last few weeks or to local coverage from the Seattle area. VQuakr (talk) 20:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At least for now. The content and sourcing are for a news story which should not exist as a separate article. It has been renamed to the name of the central character in the story, but there is not content to make it such, and, more importantly no sourcing to establish wp:notability for the individual. That doesn't preclude getting the sources required to wp:notability and creating an article later. North8000 (talk) 11:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it, I don't care where. The article title is irrelevant and easy to change. Easily meets the WP:GNG, our primary guideline, with in-depth articles in Forbes, Wall Street Journal, The Seattle Times, and many, many others. The Steve 09:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "...and many, many others." Where? Google returns a page and a half of coverage, including several blogs (of which the WSJ is one). Articles that meet GNG can still be deleted if they fall down at other hurdles, which I believe this one does. Otherwise every event that was covered in enough blogs to fill a page and a half of Google results would be included. Harry the Dog WOOF 11:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. The Associated Press, several articles, The Seatle Post-Intelligencer, 10+ articles, including many mentions before the "event", The Stranger, Knight Ridder Trubune, several articles. Twenty-nine articles on "Mastro Properties" in reliable sources from 1999-2011, all relevant. Shall I go on? The Steve 07:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I meant sources showing why this bankruptcy is notable, as this article is all about that, and many of the "keep" comments refer to renaming or merging?. As I said before, if we have sources to show that Mastro himself is notable we can have a more detailed article on him as an individual rather than a sensationalistic article on the most recent event. Harry the Dog WOOF 12:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This particular Afd is about Michael Mastro, NOT the bankruptcy, and I think I've just demonstrated my Keep vote quite nicely, don't you? The bio needs some work, but there are 12 years of news stories for his background, including almost 50 from the Seattle Times alone. The Steve 13:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If Mastro can be shown to be notable then a proper biography can be created. The creator originally created an article about the bankruptcy and he and many of his supporters are arguing it should be moved back to that title in a effort to keep it. As such, it is not notable and should be deleted, no matter what its title. Note that neither the author nor anyone else has used these past couple of weeks to improve the article in the ways you have suggested. If that had been done II would have withdrawn my nomination. If someone can make a case for Mastro's notability and wants to create an article that is more than just sensationalism, they can. There is plenty of precedent for articles being deleted and then recreated some time later when an article can be shown to be warranted. Harry the Dog WOOF 15:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have shown Mastro to be notable (see my sources, above). Making a "proper" biography will be done in the course of regular editing, building on the existing article. Deleting the article on Mastro will not improve it. I am willing to improve this article, and it is now on my watchlist, but I don't have the time to do it before this AFD is closed. The Steve 08:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On that basis I will withdraw the nomination and wait for the improvements. Harry the Dog WOOF 11:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In this discussion the title should be irrelevant. It's absurd to decide to delete an article named A but keep the same article if it's renamed to B. That issue is for the (ongoing) RM discussion. The issue here is, or should be, about whether the content of the article is notable and sufficiently supported by reliable sources. If it needs to be improved, or the scope needs to change, that's worth noting too. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've made a start on Mastro's personal history, but info is sparse, as he was only barely notable before the bankruptcy. However, he was interviewed for his property business (cites now added) and mentioned in local social reports. I also found some court records (added) for those interested in exactly how much he was in debt. Cheers! The Steve 05:00, 7 December 2012 (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.

[1]