Talk:Jason Mittell

Comment by the subject of the article

I am this person. I feel that I'm not notable enough for Wikipedia... --Jajasoon 20:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

stub

I removed the deletion tag because this is a stub which may be improvable. The comment above, allegedly by the subject (and how do we know that is true?) is two years old, and not necessarily still relevant, so I'm not sure it should be the basis of a deletion action. I came across this article and added the first citation a few days ago and other sources may be available, so I think we should leave this as a stub, and not be influenced by random critical journal articles. I also am not convinced that the only reason the stub exists is because of a wikipedia-related piece - he's also a published author. This seems to me to be an unjustified, peremptory action. Let's give it a chance - it's a stub. Tvoz/talk 02:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not a stub, it's existed for years, and there is only one third-party source, which has just two paragraphs on Mittell and isn't fundamentally about him. As I noted in the PROD reason, we have corroborating evidence, in the form of this article, that Jajasoon is Mittell and no reason to doubt it. This is at best a case of borderline notability; my attention was drawn to it from the new article that mentions it, but that's not why I think it should be deleted. It should be deleted because it makes sense to defer to the subject's wishes to delete when it's a borderline notability case.--ragesoss (talk) 03:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

About stub - my mistake: I thought I saw a stub tag on it. As for the subject's wishes, they should be considered, but this article is not in any way embarrassing to the subject or defamatory, and his view of his own notability is not necessarily accurate. It's a comment made two years ago and I'd want to see something more recent. Unfortunately, and surprisingly, that journal article doesn't give any citation for their quote from him (we try to do better than that here!) so we can't really draw timing conclusions from that. Also, I see he's had another book published, which might change the notability factor. This article isn't particularly important to me - I just happened upon it and fixed the references, but I'd give it a shot on general principles. But if you want to bring it to AfD, that's your call. I think you might have waited until I replied here,however, seeing as your original tag said it should be removed if anyone objected and wanted to improve the piece. Is there a reason for this rush? Tvoz/talk 07:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The note about removing it if anyone wanted is part of the PROD process, not something I wrote specifically; when I think something ought to be deleted I usually start with a proposed deletion simply because it's easier than an AfD. I generally don't have a problem with academics having articles even when sources are lacking to demonstrate technical notability (the threshold for which is rather too high sometimes); I'm well aware that an academic who has published multiple books is likely in reality to have meet some of the criteria listed at Wikipedia:Notability (academics), even if there are no third-party sources that definitively demonstrate that. I just don't like it when subjects don't want an article about themselves and we keep one anyway against the letter of our own rules. Most of the time, they are either not interested in or don't know how to work through the Wikipedia system (e.g., OTRS or AfD) and it just builds more negativity about Wikipedia and its community.--ragesoss (talk) 16:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I am the subject of the page (what proof do you need?). My request to be deleted is old, motivated because I think the idea that I get an entry in WP more because I was quoted in the press about WP rather than any (debatable) noteworthiness as a professor/scholar is off-base. However, I'm happy to have an entry about myself if it meets WP's notability criteria - and now that there's an article that cites my request to delete the page makes it more notable in increasing levels of meta! Not my call, obviously... --Jajasoon (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, and your graciousness with respect Wikipedia's way of doing things. Just because it was mentioned this new article, doesn't mean we have to go down that meta spiral; we have rules against that sort of silliness, not that they are always followed.--ragesoss (talk) 16:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

NP - I'm an occasional WP editor myself, and am happy to submit to the process! I would never gripe about there being an article against my wishes - but want it to highlight more than a couple of quotes about Wikipedia... --Jajasoon (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)