Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick S. Mates
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 16:51, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Stock markted trader from the 1960s who was charged with fraud. Notability not established. Radiant! 11:14, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep pending evidence of non-notability. I see from google that the investment fund he founded was mentioned in a Time article of 1969: "Mates Investment Fund, which gained 73% last year, has fallen to No. 367". Kappa 11:51, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- How does one provide "evidence of non-notability"? It's like proving a unicorn doesn't exist. The responsibility for providing evidence should rest on those who assert this person is in fact notable. Gamaliel 19:59, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- You provide evidence of non-notability by looking for evidence of notability, and not finding any. Kappa 21:04, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- How does one provide "evidence of non-notability"? It's like proving a unicorn doesn't exist. The responsibility for providing evidence should rest on those who assert this person is in fact notable. Gamaliel 19:59, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable.--Centauri 12:09, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Additionally, this nomination does not appear to be in accordance with the bit of the VFD instructions that says "Describe why the page should be deleted, in accordance with our deletion policy" - you have not put in a reason listed on Wikipedia:Deletion policy that points out why it should be deleted. As such, this is a bogus nomination - David Gerard 14:31, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- The reasoning stems from the "What wikipedia is not" article. "Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base" - "Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of notoriety or achievement." Whether being a trader with fraud charges constitutes achievement or notoriety is up to discussion, here in VfD. As a side point, he has 6 google hits total. Radiant! 16:25, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Wikipedia seems to be conflicted between its goal of becoming the "sum of all human knowledge" and a "real encyclopedia". Which one is the Pinocchio fairy tale? No vote. GRider\talk 17:23, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Both are possible. It would only take deletionists a day or two to tag all the content they believe encyclopedia users want access to, and then users could have a choice between the notabilipedia and a full version attempting decent breadth and depth of coverage. Kappa 23:50, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Ah, but you seem stuck in the 'deletion = evil' state of mind. Since it has long been established that Wikipedia should not contain everything, we all agree that some degree of deletion must be enforced. We merely differ in opinion on where to draw the line. Hence, the VfD process is used. Radiant! 09:24, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Deletionism isn't evil, but it is destroying most of wikipedia's potential, which is depressing. Kappa 20:08, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Ah, but you seem stuck in the 'deletion = evil' state of mind. Since it has long been established that Wikipedia should not contain everything, we all agree that some degree of deletion must be enforced. We merely differ in opinion on where to draw the line. Hence, the VfD process is used. Radiant! 09:24, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Both are possible. It would only take deletionists a day or two to tag all the content they believe encyclopedia users want access to, and then users could have a choice between the notabilipedia and a full version attempting decent breadth and depth of coverage. Kappa 23:50, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Wikipedia seems to be conflicted between its goal of becoming the "sum of all human knowledge" and a "real encyclopedia". Which one is the Pinocchio fairy tale? No vote. GRider\talk 17:23, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- The reasoning stems from the "What wikipedia is not" article. "Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base" - "Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of notoriety or achievement." Whether being a trader with fraud charges constitutes achievement or notoriety is up to discussion, here in VfD. As a side point, he has 6 google hits total. Radiant! 16:25, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to Mates Investment Fund. The fund was a notable, if slightly shady, aspect of business history. Mates himself was not really notable outside of managing the fund. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:30, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Sounds pretty non-notable to me. The fund might be notable, but if it is why doesn't it have an article? If someone wants to write one and redirect there that might be the best choice. if not delete. -R. fiend 19:50, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect. I agree with Starblind. The fund is notable, the person is not. Since no article exists for the fund, make a stub for or delete this article.Carrp | Talk 20:05, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable - 8 Google hits. Megan1967 00:29, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable. Wikipedia has never claimed to be the sum of all human knowledge. That would be ridiculous. RickK 00:52, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
- "It is our goal to put the sum of all human knowledge in the form of an encyclopedia in the hands of every single person on the planet for free" - Jimbo Wales [1] Kappa 05:45, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- What Wikipedia is Not:A General Knowledge Base. Do you really expect that every single tidbit of information in the world should be included in Wikipedia? RickK 06:03, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Nope Kappa 07:04, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- "It is our goal to put the sum of all human knowledge in the form of an encyclopedia in the hands of every single person on the planet for free" - Jimbo Wales [1] Kappa 05:45, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep May well be notable. Shouldn't be deleted for being incomplete. Wincoote 23:38, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep because I dug up some links [2] [3] which make me think this man or his firm was notable back in the late 60s/early 70s. However, I will note that this was a perfectly legitimate nomination and the arguments put forth by others voting range from ludicrous to completely lacking in evidence. Given the comments, I can only conclude that they are voting based on habit or anti-deletionist fervor, and not on the merits of the actual article since most of them are not actually discussing it. Perhaps tallying admins should toss out such votes as invalid. Gamaliel 00:38, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps a legitimate nomination, but a lazy one. Instead of the nominator googling once, several other people have to do it in order to dig up links. Kappa 09:51, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Why not assume good faith? Perhaps the nominator saw the same evidence and came to a different conclusion than you. Just because something gets a couple google hits doesn't automatically make it notable. Gamaliel 17:56, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps a legitimate nomination, but a lazy one. Instead of the nominator googling once, several other people have to do it in order to dig up links. Kappa 09:51, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep69.107.96.61 because I am the author of the original note, and for these reasons: (1) I am a financial contributor to Wikipedia--it's the Golden Rule--they who have the gold, rule; (2) the source for Frederick S. Mates (which admittedly probably should be titled as the Mates Investment Fund) is the classic book "The Go-Go Years : The Drama and Crashing Finale of Wall Street's Bullish 60s" by John Brooks (not to be confused with Brooke Burke, who is impossibly hot); (3) what's the harm? storage is scalable; (4) I notice some of the editors on wikipedia are or could be librarians...but for the rest of us, Wikipedia makes a great vanity publishing site...it's probably not a viable concept however, since statistics tell us that for every population N>=30 people, you will inevitable get somebody who is an 'outlier' oddball who will disagree with everybody else--a weak link in the chain.
- Since you're not a reigistered user your vote likely will not be counted. And you should be warned that your reasoning isn't going to pull much weight anyway, particularly reason #4. -R. fiend 14:13, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I kinda like the "golden rule" theory though, maybe financial contributors should be able to vote just as contributing editors can. Kappa 22:34, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Okay, your reason boils down to, 0.because you say so; 1.because I've donated (then again so have most of us here); 2.because he's in a book; 3.because everything should be kept; and 4.because Wikipedia should be a vanity site. Need I point out that none of these are actually valid and relevant to the discussion at hand? Radiant! 22:22, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
- I kinda like the "golden rule" theory though, maybe financial contributors should be able to vote just as contributing editors can. Kappa 22:34, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Still not notable, though Gamaliel made a near save. Jayjg (talk) 17:30, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Since the suggested redir target Mates Investment Fund doesn't exist, and this article mostly talks about the fund, maybe Move it there as the start of that article? Otherwise Delete. FWIW, I am more alarmed by the suggestion that "I am a financial contributor to Wikipedia" gives anyone extra article contribution privileges. Just because some Wikipedians don't contribute financially because they are unemployed, or whatever, doesn't make their edits less valuable. Niteowlneils 19:26, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- 69.107.96.61 I am alarmed that so-called registered users can delete stuff contributed by financial contributors. Who'se your sugar daddy? Me. Daddy Warbucks. I'm paying for your tuition while you go off and ponder Kant. Yes, it's the same thing. The Chicago school of economics says your worth is directly related to your money. Oprah Winfred is worth more than 50 IBM fellows, cause she gets paid more. That's what society wants. Give it to 'em good and hard, like Mencken says for democracy. Sad but true? Then start your own society; move to Canada. Another pet peeve: I spent a half hour gathering statistics for diamond production by value (rough cut to final gem) and some bozo deletes it from the DeBeers site cause he thought it was extraneous. That's wrong folks. This whole concept of wikipedia is doomed, and the Lexus/Nexus people are laughing all the way to the bank, which confirms BTW the Chicago School analysis. I vote that financial contributors get as many votes as the dollars they contribute, and nothing they post can be deleted unless outvoted, or if it's clearly abuse.
- This is not the forum to discuss policy changes. Please go to the Village Pump to discuss your ideas for such changes. Gamaliel 00:39, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, you seem to have confused wikipedia with a capitalist enterprise. Look at the top of your screen and you'll see this is wikipedia.org, not .com. You remind me of those people who give money to the Red Cross and then want to tell them exactly what to spend it on. You're not the first person to want to turn wikipedia into the yellow pages, and you won't be the last, but it still isn't going to happen. I appreciate that you donated $75,000 (I assume you did, you said that you are our sugar dady, not that you are one of many), but that doesn't allow you to vote yourself thousands of votes. Write to your congressman and ask him to introduce a bill that will grant every citizen 1 vote per tax dollar they pay, and use the Chicago School to back up your argument. See where it gets you. And to really endear yourself make sure you mention that 1 Columbian drug lord is better than 1000 Jesuses, 2000 Gandhis, 3000 Buddahs, and a Mother Teresa. That should seal the deal. Let me know when that succeeds and I may reconsider. -R. fiend 17:41, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- 69.107.96.61 Yellow pages? Nuts. The article is about Frederick Mates, a notable financial person. One vote = one dollar is actually the law in some juridictions vis-a-vis property taxes (a minority trend but Scalia and others are pushing for it on the Supremes). Mother Teresa was a capitalist powerhouse--don't be put off by her modesty--her foundation got paid. Drug Lords are indeed gods in Latin America--see Cidade de Deus/City of God (Brazil 2002). And, BTW, I have contributed US$30 so far, and will continue to do so as long as my stuff does not get deleted too often. Like I said, my DeBeers post got trimmed but I'll consider that a rookie mistake by some stylist. Take Care.
- While this particular article isn't "Yellow Pages" material, your proposal to allow financial contributors to write whatever they want and block deletion would amount to as much. Walmart could donate a mere $20,000 (pennies to them, and a tax write off) and write articles for every store they have, product on sale this week, etc. As for $1 = 1 vote, I'm not convicned this is the case anywhere, nor do I see how Scalia would have any say about extending such a practice, as it would clearly be a case for the legislative branch, all he could do is rule it constitutional or not if it ever got that far, which I doubt it would. Mother Teresa's foundation may have had alot of money, but that doesn't mean she did; anyone who reads about financial topics should know the difference. -R. fiend 16:32, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- 69.107.96.61 Yellow pages? Nuts. The article is about Frederick Mates, a notable financial person. One vote = one dollar is actually the law in some juridictions vis-a-vis property taxes (a minority trend but Scalia and others are pushing for it on the Supremes). Mother Teresa was a capitalist powerhouse--don't be put off by her modesty--her foundation got paid. Drug Lords are indeed gods in Latin America--see Cidade de Deus/City of God (Brazil 2002). And, BTW, I have contributed US$30 so far, and will continue to do so as long as my stuff does not get deleted too often. Like I said, my DeBeers post got trimmed but I'll consider that a rookie mistake by some stylist. Take Care.
- 69.107.96.61 I am alarmed that so-called registered users can delete stuff contributed by financial contributors. Who'se your sugar daddy? Me. Daddy Warbucks. I'm paying for your tuition while you go off and ponder Kant. Yes, it's the same thing. The Chicago school of economics says your worth is directly related to your money. Oprah Winfred is worth more than 50 IBM fellows, cause she gets paid more. That's what society wants. Give it to 'em good and hard, like Mencken says for democracy. Sad but true? Then start your own society; move to Canada. Another pet peeve: I spent a half hour gathering statistics for diamond production by value (rough cut to final gem) and some bozo deletes it from the DeBeers site cause he thought it was extraneous. That's wrong folks. This whole concept of wikipedia is doomed, and the Lexus/Nexus people are laughing all the way to the bank, which confirms BTW the Chicago School analysis. I vote that financial contributors get as many votes as the dollars they contribute, and nothing they post can be deleted unless outvoted, or if it's clearly abuse.
- I am not finding any other evidence of notability of this person. Delete the biography (though I could see this as a useful redirect to a more general article where the change in the practice of accounting for letter stocks is discussed). Comment: I do agree with Gamaliel's observation that many of the comments of voters on this page give the impression that they are voting solely on the basis of their philosophical positions and with no regard for the merits of this particular case. Rossami (talk) 05:39, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Seems to be basically a one-fact article: namely, that he managed an investment fund in the 60's and 70's which was involved in accounting improprieties. There seems to be some precedent that being convicted of white-collar crimes is not inherently notable. For example, we recently deleted Stevin Hoover (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Stevin Hoover), even though Hoover was jailed. (The discussion in that case didn't inspire confidence that it was carefully considered, however.) Was Mates convicted? I don't think this hurdles the bar. --BM 16:22, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Notable EdwinHJ | Talk 16:30, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. He was notable, or at least notorious, back in his day, even if he isn't any more. Wikipedia's got articles from the old Encyclopaedia Britannica about people who are no longer notable altough they were at the time. This is just another example of that. Miss Pippa 18:22, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Despite the destructive argument by 69.107.96.61, who I'm pretty sure has never given a dime I believe this article warrent a keep for the reasons directly above.LukeSurl 20:45, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.