Talk:Matthew Alexander

Removed Speedy Tag

An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability; to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable. Mr. Alexander has published a book and was awarded the Bronze Star, which can be construed as notable. Hence my decline on the speedy. If you feel strongly about this piece AFD is an option. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 14:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I've re-tagged the article as a speedy G4: recreation of deleted material (this was deleted in October). However, I still feel article fails A7, there is no assertion of notability in the article. Subject was awarded a Bronze Star and wrote a book. Many, many, many people have been awarded a Bronze Star and have written books. Perhaps someday some 3rd-party reliable sources will write about this man and his book, until then all we have in this article are links to blogs and the subject himself. Artcle also fails speedy category G11 (spam). L0b0t (talk) 14:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey L0b0t, I can understand the deletion under: recreation of deleted material, especially if there were no significant changes made or references added. Is there away for an editor to run a check on past deleted articles? However, regarding the rest, isn’t that more suited for AFD. Thanks for your help. ShoesssS ^Talk 14:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

hangon explanation

I started an article on How to Break a Terrorist yesterday, the book written by this guy.

Someone noticed that the Matthew Alexander article had once existed, and been deleted, and restored it. That was useful, because it cited references I hadn't seen when I started the article on the book.

They suggested that the two articles should be merged, and suggested I think about which one should be the target.

I am thinking about it. Geo Swan (talk) 14:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Possible instance of WP:BITE

An administrator permanently blocked User:Howtobreakaterrorist, the contributor who started this article. Is this really how new users should be blocked -- with zero warning? From what I can see that administrator didn't make any effort to ask User:Howtobreakaterrorist if they were in a conflict of interest.

People choose weird names. This contributor may have been a fan of the book -- not someone with a conflict of interest at all. Geo Swan (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Original content not so bad

I don't believe the original content of this article was so bad. If it was not the work of the author of the book, or their paid publicist, then it was not in a conflict of interest, and I question whether it should have been deleted in the first place.

My understanding of the deletion policies is that deletion decisions should be based on the merits of covering the topic, not on the current state of the article. The guy wrote a book that has stirred controversy. Shouldn't that establish enough "notability" that anyone with a concern should have forgone speedy deletion and used {{prod}} or {{afd}} instead? Geo Swan (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the "conflict of interest" tag?

I asked for an explanation of the {{coi}} tag. Geo Swan (talk) 16:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The author only seems notable in the context of the book, and the two articles do seem to cover a lot of the same ground. I'd recommend merging this article into the book article (How to Break a Terrorist: The US Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality, to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq). Doing so could also prevent attracting the addition of BLP-violating content about the author. Skomorokh 23:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec) An editor has proposed merging the article How to Break a Terrorist into this one (I just moved that article so as not to include the book subtitle in the article name). I think this is a good idea. Normally we would have a separate article about a notable author and a notable book he has written. But Matthew Alexander is a pseudonym and we do not know who he really is (somebody does, and that seems to have caused some problems - his identity is protected for his personal safety and for his career, a WP:BLP issue).

That means we really do not have much if any material to write a complete bio separate from the book. We know only what the person cares to disclose (and cannot independently verify its truth) in the book, and perhaps on interviews given to news sources in a way that limits the news sources' objectivity on the subject. Unless the same anonymous author's identity is revealed, or he writes other books under the same pseudonym, or we get solidly sourced details of his life that make him notable independently of the book despite being anonymous, I just don't see that there's a reason for a separate article. Merging them would do two things. It would concentrate everything in on place, making it simpler to maintain and for the reader to read. Second, it would reduce the temptation by people who are in a position to know, to try to reveal his identity again. Wikidemon (talk) 23:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh hi, I'm the guy who restored this article. Sorry about the mess - though I note that l0b0t's concerns were clearly addressed in the article log and could also have been resolved painlessly with a Google search. I'm fully in favor of merging this article into the book's - the person is of interest only in relation to the book - and after I noticed that the book has its own article, having this article around has only been a matter of making the previously deleted revisions available to help with that one. --Kizor 00:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

If the author becomes publicly known, he may deserve an article, but otherwise a merge into the book article seems wisest. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 00:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, fellows. I've asked the proponent of book into author to comment. I suggest if we do not hear disagreement in the new day or two that we go ahead with the merge of author into book. Regards, Skomorokh 01:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

That would be me. Thanks for asking. I have no problem with a merge and redirection in the opposite order to what I initially suggested. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 21:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Great, I've gone ahead and completed the merge. Regards, Skomorokh 21:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)