Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Volney Mathison

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 keep. Jayjg (talk) 04:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Volney Mathison

[edit]
Volney Mathison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual. The references for this article in its current form are as follows:

Further searches for sources (web, books, news) do not suggest the existence of source indicating notability (he appears to have received a [1] death notice—not an editorial obituary—in the LA Times, though. Bongomatic 08:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update on sources

As of this revision, which reflects Cirt's rewrite, the references are as follows:

  • The Scandal of Scientology.
Unable to review.
  • Trick or Treatment: The Undeniable Facts about Alternative Medicine.
Unable to review.
  • The Gernsback Days.
Two references, with zero editorial text (entries in lists of works). No information about individual whatsoever.
  • American Fiction, 1901-1925: A Bibliography.
One mention with zero editorial text (entry in list of works). No information about individual whatsoever.
  • Science-Fiction: The Gernsback Years: A complete coverage of the genre magazines Amazing, Astounding, Wonder, and others from 1926 through 1936.
One paragraph description of the subject based explicitly on speculation from his writings. This doesn't even claim to be a reliable source about him.
  • Stories of the far North.
Passing mention of subject
  • Worlds of Tomorrow: The Amazing Universe of Science Fiction Art.
Mention of a story. Brief mention of E-meter without reference to his role in its creation.
  • The World's Best Short Stories of 1930.
Mention of subject in list with no additional detail.
  • A Piece of Blue Sky.
Unable to review.
  • Suppressed and Incredible Inventions.
Passing mention of subject as inventor of E-meter without any reference to him beyond that.
  • "Clear thinking".
Passing mention of subject as inventor of E-meter, passing mention of patent rights dispute.
  • Far Out: 101 Strange Tales from Science's Outer Edge.
Brief mention in single paragraph about E-meter and patent rights.
  • L. Ron Hubbard: Messiah or Madman?.
Two references cited by Google Books, only able to review one in snippet view. Passing reference (note name is misspelled as Matthison).
  • Further reading references
Unchanged from previous analysis.

While there are a number of the references that I was unable to check, none of the remaining ones support inclusion in this encyclopedia. Invention of the e-meter is not sufficient for notability, nor are the basic conditions of BIO or GNG met. Bongomatic 03:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bleiler is the reference that convinces me that Mathison meets the GNG. Just to establish Bleiler's credentials, his early work is described in the Nicholls/Clute Encyclopedia of SF as the cornerstone of SF bibliography, and the cited volume is described as an expansion of that work. This is a fundamental SF reference. The only parts of the GNG that could be argued against are "significant" and "reliable". For the former, one paragraph may not be substantial, but the man gets his own entry in this (very authoritative) reference work. To me that's significant. For the latter, yes, Bleiler says he is speculating about the man's job, but the other data is not speculation, and in any case this is the wrong definition of reliable. We can accurately report that an RS speculated in such-and-such a way about Mathison. The situation is analogous to sources about B. Traven, many of which speculate but the reliability of which is not in question. Having said that, I agree this is marginal, and have voted "weak keep". Mike Christie (talk) 11:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mike. Appreciate your views on this. I respectfully come to a different conclusion. For a little context, the following is the Bleiler entry on Mathison in its entirety:
Judging by this story and the author's The Radio Buster (Philadelphia: Stokes, 1924), Mathison was probably a professional brass pounder (i.e., old-time telegraph operator) with some exeperience in Alaska and elsewhere. Mathison also had two short pieces in Gernsback's Radio News and "The Death Bottle" in Weird Tales, March 1925. Mathison was a prolific author elsewhere under the pseud. Dex Volney, contributing Western stories with Alaskan settings to Street and Smith magazines. Apparently resident in New York at this time and connected with the Pacific Radio Co., New York City.
The entry then has one-paragraph blurbs on two of Mathison's works. Even "weakly", I don't see how this satisfies the GNG or AUTHOR. While the source is reliable, it explicitly disclaims reliability about the subject, and even if it were known to be accurate, this hardly qualifies as significant coverage or, while not explicitly mentioned at AUTHOR, significant editorial review of works, which has often been found to establish notability of authors. Bongomatic 12:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After some more thought I think you're right that this is very marginal for "significant". Bleiler really doesn't know much about him. I have struck my keep vote below and will think about it some more, and may come back and !vote again. Mike Christie (talk) 13:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GHITS is not a valid argument. Can you point to one, single, reliable source that provides any in-depth coverage, or anything that could even reasonably be considered coverage at all? Bongomatic 09:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ya, all the sources together give a good deal of coverage. I will work to improve the article. ;) Cirt (talk) 09:22, 14 January 2010 (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.