Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Daisey

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 of the debate was no consensus to delete the article. Mailer Diablo 02:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Daisey

This seems pretty clearly to be a vanity page. Jrauser 03:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete vanity. First sentence reads like a resume --† Ðy§ep§ion † 03:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete extreme nn vanity.Blnguyen 04:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ardenn 04:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete blatant vanity. Royboycrashfan 05:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete oh total vanity. pschemp | talk 06:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete- vanity. Reyk 06:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Withdraw opinion. Reyk 07:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It should be noted that "vanity" is not a deletion criterion. So called vanity articles are frequently deleted, but an article written by its subject is not, per se, a deletable offence on WP (if Bill Clinton had written the article on Bill Clinton, we would not delete it, although it would probably be heavilly edited to remove a non-NPOV). The reason many "vanity articles" are deleted is simply that the subject is usually not notable and there is a lack of reputable sources on him/her that may be used as a basis to write the article and satisfy the requirements of WP:V and WP:RS. As is clearly the case in this instance. ENCEPHALON 10:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • ...there is a lack of reputable sources on him/her that may be used as a basis to write the article...as is clearly the case.... Google is your friend: 67,400 hits for "Mike Daisey" (in quotes), 2 from Google Books (though one is from one of those damned Chicken Soup for the Soul collections), and 9 from Google Scholar -- and a Google Ads link to buy audiobooks by Mike Daisey from Audible.com. So "clearly the case", well, isn't. --Calton | Talk 01:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete {{userfy}} or speedy, as no notability apparent Avi 15:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete since it was created by an anon. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 16:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Until WP creates a code restriction to prevent anonymous users from creating articles, it is rediculous to delete due to anonymous creation. This nonsense is likely one of the reasons why WP editors are widely reputed as a cabal of elitist snobs. -- Randomgenius 10:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    • The relevance was, vanities created by logged-in users can usually be userfied, whereas those created by anons can't. But I'm changing to keep as rewritten anyway. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 09:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete clearly nn self-promotion & vanity. Mikkerpikker ... 17:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. --Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 19:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete Article states subject was featured in a number of magazines and on BBC radio. If these can be verified, then he might be of some minor notability and I could be persuaded to change. howcheng {chat} 19:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I said I could be persuaded to change, and look at that, I am. Keep per Calton's research. howcheng {chat} 07:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up. Author, playwright/monologist. Known for working at Amazon.com and creating a one-man show (21 Dog Years based on the experience (the book version, ironically enough, [available through Amazon. Performed this show at the Berkeley Repertory Theatre and an abridged version as a BBC Radio 4 Afternoon Play. Written and performed another Afternoon Play, The Ugly American. BBC profile: Opening the book on Amazon. All of this information is buried under the resume-style trivia, but it's there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Calton (talk • contribs) 13:31, 9 February 2006.(Sorry, in a hurry to leave for work. --Calton | Talk 01:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC))
• Comment: from above, User:Encephalon writes, there is a lack of reputable sources on him/her that may be used as a basis to write the article and satisfy the requirements of WP:V and WP:RS. As is clearly the case in this instance.

• Fifteen minutes on Google (counting the cut-and-paste/formatting time) turns up:
• BBC - Radio 4 - Afternoon Play - The Ugly American, Written and performed by Mike Daisey. An American student is desperate to absorb the British theatrical tradition, but instead falls into shady fringe theatre...[1]
• NPR : Tales from Amazon.com: Scott [Simon] talks with Mike Daisey, a former employee of Amazon.com who has produced a one-man show about his short career at Amazon.... [2]
• Mike Daisey's powerhouse tell-all monologue is elevating and hilarious By Jonathan Kiefer. Encore Encore Our critics weigh in on local theatre ... [3]
• The Seattle Times: Theater & arts: "The Ugly American":... Mike Daisey begins his new solo theater piece, "The Ugly American," riffing on (and debunking) that ... [4]
• Art imitates life -- or the lack thereof -- of Amazon.com worker: Mike Daisey has turned his two years at Amazon.com into a one-man show, "21 Dog Years: doing time@amazon.com." Phil H. Webber / Seattle Post-Intelligencer. [5]
• Comedian lifts lid on working for Amazon.com | The Register: Mike Daisey's 21 Dog Years – Doing Time @ amazon.com promises to reveal the ... Anyhow, Mike Daisey's show takes place on Saturday 23 November at 5.30pm at ... [6]
• Solo Turns: Monopoly! by Mike Daisey. Sponsored by The Landing. Dubbed “the master storyteller” by The New York Times, Mike Daisey brought down the house at the 2005 Festival... [7]

This was essentially random: I clicked random results pages and pulled stuff off them. It's called "research", people. --Calton | Talk 01:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, it's called research. What a pity the article's creator didn't do any, since they are the one who supposedly cares :-) Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 09:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and add references cited by User:Calton so many afd's without proper research, when articles could just be improved is just pathetic. --Randomgenius 10:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and thank Calton for the research. Kappa 20:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• A reply to Calton. Thank you for the preceeding, Calton. It's regrettable that you presume I'd written my comment without doing what you helpfully inform us is '"research", people'. I did make the requisite appeal to the research tool of choice for scholarly writing these days—the search engine. I got online booksellers, blogs, ads and notices; even a dog training outfit. Many of these are no surprise: Mike Daisey has a play in print, 21 Dog Years. This explains many of the hits, in particular the booksellers and notices. You adduce a sample, and claim that they are sufficient to meet what I termed reputable sources... that may be used as a basis to write the article and satisfy the requirements of WP:V and WP:RS.

  I saw some of the things you've put up. The NPR link is a three sentence scheduling notice about 21 Dog Years. The BBC link is a similar 1 sentence scheduling notice about a play. This SF link has a single sentence, about his play. In my search I had also found others of a similar nature: Assembly Theatres programme item—1 sentence about the play. Now, when one writes an article—an encyclopedia article, how well do 1-sentence sources serve as reference works? How well do scheduling notices about plays serve as a basis to write an encyclopedic biographical article, in your opinion?

  You mention the number of google hits your searches produced. I have found that using the number of hits to indicate encyclopediability to be suboptimal suboptimal—what matters most is the quality of the references and sources with which you can write on the subject. Not the number of hits.

  Take, for example, the article on Hopkins syndrome. This is an exceptionally rare medical condition—many doctors go through their entire professional lives without having once heard of it. However, it is the subject of serious study and is perfectly encyclopedic. Our WP article is a summary of what is known about the condition; every claim in every sentence is verifiable in the references, all of which are of good quality. We'd be hard-pressed to put up an argument that that article in not suitable for WP. Yet, if you perform the much-vaunted google search, you'd get only some 250 odd links, of which many are duplicate copies of abstracts pulled off another site. Google hits are a suboptimal measure of encyclopediability. The numbers may coincide with encyclopediability, but they are not the crux of the matter; at the very best, they are merely what might be called a surrogate measure.

  The crux is how solid an article can be written about the subject, per WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:NOT. If the subject is a disease, are there excellent references that report what is known about its clinical features, pathology, etiology, epidemiology, natural course, possible treatments? If the subject is a person, do we have references on them (ie. them, not just reviews of their books or plays or theses)? The latter issue lies at the heart of this AFD, and perhaps we should discuss it further.

  I have noticed a curious difficulty many of us Wikipedians seem to have with biographical articles on writers (I think it has something to do with misunderstanding the relationship between WP:BIO and WP:V). If a person happens to have written a book, and there is available a review/critique of the book, there is immediately an (odd) assumption that a WP article can be written about the person (as opposed to the book). "John Brown has published a novel? Oh, we definitely should have an article on him, then." This is often said despite nothing ever having been written on or about John Brown, the subject of the proposed article. IMHO, this misunderstands how an encyclopedia article is written. An article on the subject "John Brown" can only be written per WP:NOR and WP:V if we have works on John Brown, just as an article on asthma may only be written if there are publications on asthma. If all available acceptable sources pertain solely to John Brown's book, one may write a good, NPOV article on the book, but unless one wishes to break WP:NOR, the author page should not be more than a redirect.

  Consider as an example the article Bertrand Russell. The reason we were able to write that article on WP is that there is a rich trove of works on Russell, the person: Ray Monk's famous two-volume biography, AJ Ayer's work on Russell, Clark's—even Russell himself wrote a three volume autobiography and numerous papers on his own life and convictions. We have libraries-worth of works on his works, his philosophy, his mathematics. So when we put together the article, including in it those features that one would expect to find in a biographical account, we have rich sources from which to write and verify. When we say "Russell was born on May 18, 1872", we can verify that, easily. When we write "He was born in Wales into an aristocratic family", we can verify that. When we say that his father was so and so, his mother had an affair with so and so, his siblings were so and so, his adolescence was lonely, he attended Trinity on scholarship, his influences were Whitehead, Moore, Hume; he married so and so, he taught at XYZ, he was forced to leave City College because of controversy, he won the Noble Prize in Literature... every such claim is verifiable from excellent sources. And then of course we have the works on his philosophy and thought, his politics, his professional life... For the opposite situation, see this AFD for an example of a case where there were a lot of sources on the writer's work, but absolutely nothing on the person.

  With Mike Daisey, the "references" I found were

  1. Online bookshops selling 21 Dog Years
  2. 1-2 line notices of the sort I've alluded to above, and
  3. his personal website, which contains little biographical information (and which is furthermore inadmissable as a good source, being a personal website).

• I do not believe these hits to be "reputable sources that may be used as a basis to write the article and satisfy the requirements of WP:V and WP:RS". Which is why I said so. You've been a Wikipedian for a while, Calton, and I'll not waive policy pages in front of you, but I would ask that in future you assume good faith of your fellows. In discussions, do not presume that they haven't given a matter any thought, or haven't performed "research, people". They may simply have come to different conclusions than you. Resorting to condescension, incidentally, is rarely productive (particularly when it falls flat).

  Now, I am thankful for your contribution above for one reason in particular: you found a couple of good reviews of the play, 21 Dog Years, that I didn't. For example, this BBC link from the old UK BBC website. It's a very good write up. I've also found an SF weekly review, which now that I look at it is actually linked from one of your links above: I think you got a TOC page. These pieces all pertain to the work 21 Dog Years: they're either reviews of the show or the book. One can write a very decent article on 21 Dog Years from these sources; along the course of which one can mention the author's other play (which seems to have considerably fewer reviews), and works. That outcome I'd fully support, because the article that is written will be congruent with the both the subject and quality of the available sources. If someone writes 21 Dog Years, I'd support having Mike Daisey and The Ugly American (play) as redirects. If not, my opinion above still holds. ENCEPHALON 06:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• NB. As there has been a significant discussion over this, I think all participants should be given an opportunity to reconsider their views: while my opinion remains unchanged, some others may wish to change their vote from delete to something else. I'll contact those who edited the AFD before Calton's post to ask if they would like to reconsider. ENCEPHALON 06:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Calton. It's regrettable that you presume I'd written my comment without doing what you helpfully inform us is '"research", people'. It's not regrettable, it's natural -- and based on the content of your rather gaseous and defensive response, I stand by my statement. To pick a few examples:
    • The NPR link is a three sentence scheduling notice about 21 Dog Years.. Wrong. It's a link to a radio interview -- you DID notice the "LISTEN" button, right? You DID notice the sentence began with "Scott talks with...", right? -- by NPR's Scott Simon for his Weekend Edition Saturday program. I added the "Simon" so you might get the point -- that the host of the program has singled out the subject and his work -- but it seems to have escaped you.
    • The BBC link is a similar 1 sentence scheduling notice about a play. Yes, a BBC scheduling notice about the play that the BBC is broadcasting. Your phrasing makes it sound as if it were merely a theater listing -- though given your complete misreading of the NPR link, maybe that's what you thought it was.
    • This SF link has a single sentence, about his play. Technically true, but misleading: it's round-up page for that week's edition of the paper, with a link to a full review of the play. You DID notice that link there, right?
    • You mention the number of google hits your searches produced. I have found that using the number of hits to indicate encyclopediability to be suboptimal suboptimal—what matters most is the quality of the references and sources with which you can write on the subject. Which is, you know, 'utter irrelevant to what I actually did. The number of Google hits was not -- and as far as I'm concerned, clearly not -- the primary argument, merely the jumping off point for a quick jump through what the Google hits reveal. That you would pick nits -- and in the obvious case of the NPR link, be objectively wrong about it -- rather than note what the pattern reveals makes me question the purpose of your response.
    • As well, your self-congratulatory (and redundant) lecture about sources is duly noted. It's also utterly irrelevant: none of the links I note are for the purpose of sourcing the article -- they're for rebutting the claim that that this article is a vanity piece for promoting a non-notable writer, by demonstrating the breadth of the attention he's received. What choices I made of which to cut and paste were based on medium, significance of source, and geography -- a San Francisco alt-weekly, two Seattle daily papers, NPR, BBC, Spoleto USA, etc: they seemed sufficient to the task I set out to do. The BBC profile page might have been the tiniest clue
  • With Mike Daisey, the "references" I found were... That rather speaks more to your research skills than to the source material, doesn't it, as the NPR link you misread indicates. Perhaps the time you could have spent actually reading the (essentially random) links I pulled up or doing some actual research would have been better spent than on composing a rambling and tangential 1300-word rationale for your pomposity -- along with the self-congratulatory side-trip. I, for one, do not plan on spending any more time rebutting nonsense: I only responded as I have because, as rule, I hate pomposity and I hate having my intelligence insulted, especially at length. Now excuse me, I have work to do and -- when time allows -- an encyclopedia to contribute to. --Calton | Talk 00:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
    • That is an unfortunate post, Calton. Do try to keep uncivil remarks, personal attacks and/or disparagement of your fellow Wikipedians off these pages; we all benefit from courteous and thoughtful AFD discussions. As to the substance of your comments:
    1. In this AFD we're mainly concerned with whether there exist multiple independent, reputable references on the subject "Mike Daisey", which may be employed to write an encyclopedic account of him. I found none, and stated so in my first comment. In a discourteous response, you disagreed, pasting a number of links that you felt disproved my suggestion that there is a lack of reputable sources on [him] that may be used as a basis to write the article and satisfy the requirements of WP:V and WP:RS. The links sadly did nothing of the sort; indeed, they have confirmed my original conjecture about the paucity of reputable, independent references on Daisey.

       This is the core of the issue: to write a WP article on a person, we need works on that person, just as we do with any other subject in order to comply with WP:V and WP:RS. If a thing that person has produced has received wide attention and comment in reputable publications, we may certainly write an article on that thing, but we won't be able to write a good article on the person if we lack verifiable facts about him. That's it, really: that's all I'm saying.

    2. In your last comment, you write that discussion of the use of Google hits was "utter irrelevant to what I actually did". Well, I was responding to your first comment: you informed me that "Google is your friend", and proceeded to relay a string of Google figures: "67,400 hits for "Mike Daisey" (in quotes), 2 from Google Books (though one is from one of those damned Chicken Soup for the Soul collections), and 9 from Google Scholar -- and a Google Ads link to buy audiobooks by Mike Daisey from Audible.com." I was simply addressing this apparent faith in the relevance of hits; it's also an issue that bears discussion, IMHO, given the widespread use of this technique on AFD.
    3. With respect to the links:
       • The SF link. ...it's round-up page for that week's edition of the paper, with a link to a full review of the play. You DID notice that link there, right? Yes—I explicitly noted that in the second last paragraph of my comment. I'd read the short, 1 paragraph review of 21 Dog Years; you had actually linked a TOC (table of contents) type page of the SF Weekly. Did you read what I wrote, Calton? Not that any of this is directly relevant to the crux of the matter: the availability of good sources on Mike Daisey. Like all the other quoted sources, this one is focused on the play, not the man.
       • The BBC link. It's good you acknowledge that this is simply a scheduling notice—1 sentence long. You then ask if I knew the play was broadcast by the BBC. One would hardly expect a schedule on BBC Radio to pertain to some other institution's line up, Calton. I most certainly have not alluded to theatres. Again, though, this is neither here nor there. This is a brief notice on a performance: it's not a reference work on Daisey. We can use this page with its solitary proclamation as a source in an article on the play The Ugly American. We could use it as a source in an article on Mike Daisy to indicate that one of his performances was broadcast on BBC—if we had enough other material on Daisey himself that could be used to write an article on him, that is. As must be apparent, I am doubtful of this.
       • The NPR link. You reserve especial odioum here, over a point as incorrect and IMHO as inconsequential as the above. Yes, I did spy the "Listen" button, Calton—it's a bit hard to miss on a page with 3 sentences. Before you make the inquiry, yes, I had even clicked on it and listened to all 14 minutes and 36.5 seconds. The interview is, once again, on the show 21 Dog Years: they spoke about the play, the experiences behind the show, and played a number of clips from it. Not a single second was spent on Mike Daisey the individual apart from the show: nothing on his childhood, or education, or influences, life... or even his other works. It was a chat about 21 Dog Years; the description was not "wrong", Calton—quite the opposite, if I may say so. And, once again, the point you raise is IMHO tangential: whether or not I saw the "Listen" button hardly changes the simple, straightforward nature of the page—three sentences concerning a scheduled radio interview about 21 Dog Years.
    • The primary consideration remains: where are the multiple independent, reputable references with which we may write a balanced, factual, verified WP article on the person, Mike Daisey? I do not see them: what I see are simply blurbs and reviews on the play/book. They are best utilized as a basis to write about the play; until Mike Daisey is notable enough that people start writing about him, I'm afraid a page on him is premature.

      Finally, do moderate your tone. I was disappointed (and surprised) to read your last post: we would all benefit from courteous discussions, and that tone is hardly helpful. I've given your comments all due consideration and respect: this despite being subjected to an incredible amount of condescension and incivility ("It's called research, people; "gaseous and defensive"; "self-congratulatory"; "your pomposity"; "speaks more to your research skills"; "rambling"; "pick[ing] nits" "nonsense"). In fact, I stopped the normal course of the AFD, contacted each participant who had commented before you and asked them to consider your views, even though they are opposed to mine, because the AFD would not have reached a fair conclusion otherwise. It would be nice if you could say what you have to say with a little less discourtesy. ENCEPHALON 14:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

      • NB. I've just gotten a hunch as to why one of my comments above was disparaged as "self-congratulatory". Is it that I referred positively to an article I initiated? If so, please note that that was not the intent at all: I only used the article as an example because I'm aware of it (I consider articles WP's anyway, and refer to them that way). I don't know that many articles of the top of my head that can serve as a good example of what I was referring to: something on an encyclopedic subject with very low google hits, but which had been written up on WP and completely referenced to acceptable sources. If this was the reason for the uncivil remark, I can only advise, once more, WP:FAITH. Thanks ENCEPHALON 14:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• My opinion remains unchanged. Ardenn 07:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Still delete, but I'm fine with an article about 21 Dog Years instead if the self-aggrandizing stuff is made to disappear.pschemp | talk 07:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• I'm also still going for delete; but thanks to ENCEPHALON and Calton for their research. Mikker ^... 17:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable and verifiable. I wouldn't object to anything about Daisey himself being merged into an article on 21 Dog Years, so long as someone else does the work ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Well written, ENCEPHALON, the subject remains non-notable. Admins, we should keep this entry, simply for ENCEPHALON's excellent analysis of notability! -- Avi 13:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or even strong keep per Calton (never thought I'd type that). -- JJay 04:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Obvious Keep. Profiled by the BBC [8], published by major publisher, often enough noted in news articles. Is there a dispute on this for any reason other than a clique of users regularly vote, in what should be seen as bad faith, to delete articles that plainly meet notability standards? Monicasdude 18:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I looked him up on Gale.net's Biography Research Centre which has a listing in its Contemporary Authors Online for Daisey. Unfortunately, it is another subscriber service but it is another reliable source for the article which I have added to it. He is both verifiable and notable enough as an author for mine. Capitalistroadster 23:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Great effort there! The first promising plausible source. However, on checking out at the website I was discouraged. According to gale-edit.com, their Contemporary Authors index is essentially written by the authors themselves. Any person who has published one non-vanity press book can fill out their questionnaire; Gale editors will turn the answers into a prose sketch and then return this piece to the author. Then, "we will incorporate any changes you wish to make at that time..." This certainly does not seem to be a reliable source as defined in WP policies. Sources acceptable to WP are those which have undergone a fact-check or peer-review process (eg. as in published scientific journals, theses, newspaper articles etc). This is especially important to WP because we completely lack any kind of mechanism for doing this internally (ie. we have no peer-reviewers, editorial offices, fact-checking departments etc—we're just an anonymous wiki, so everything must be cited to reputable external sources). (<--general comment just for the benefit of participants who may be unfamiliar; no offense meant Capitalistroadster :))ENCEPHALON 14:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Reasonably popular book (66 user reviews on Amazon isn't too shabby), documented media coverage. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 00:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep as of 05:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC). Basing my opinion solely on my interpretation that the assertions in the article suffice to meet WP:BIO - barely. ikkyu2 (talk)
• speedy keep -- bad faith nomination. -- Geo Swan 17:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • You what? That's bloody ridiculous — don't be so silly! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:25, 20 February 2006 (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.