Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Matt Sanchez


 * 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: Kept.. --Aphaia 01:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez
Delete. Page was created by Matt Sanchez, under the name Bluemarine. Sanchez was banned from Wikipedia (where he was also editing under "Bluemarine") for, among other things, excessive self-promotion. He appears to be trying to use Wikiquote as a self-promotional tool. Overwhelming majority of quotes and bio on his Wikiquote page have been added by Sanchez/Bluemarine himself, and none rise to the level of notability. Most quotes on the page (now removed) were from Sanchez's own blog. The ones that remain were placed on the page by Sanchez, from articles Sanchez wrote for online-only publications. — Slivowitz 14:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Vote closes: 15:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: Based on the timing (starting after the WP ban) and the content (arguably excessive biographical material), the article creator,, is almost certainly the same person as w:User:Bluemarine, who self-identifies as the article subject. However, we're not as sensitive as Wikipedia about famous subjects editing their own articles. Since citing exact quotations leaves less room for biased prose, we're more concerned about the content. So far, in that regard, what I see are possible issues of conflict of interest (COI), quote-selection bias, and living-person quotation circumspection. To avoid COI, we tend to demand of self-editors only that they are unquestionably notable, they scrupulously cite reliable sources for their quotes, and don't attempt to bias their articles in their favor. Bluemarine does appear to have fallen somewhat short of this goal, but other editors seem to have successfully trimmed much of that material (reducing bias and inadequate sourcing), and in my eye (admittedly inexpert on the subject), the result, at the moment, seems arguably reasonable, well-sourced, not libelous or mean-spirited, and not unpithy (reducing article bias and WQ:QLP concerns). (By the way, WQ:QLP doesn't mean critical or otherwise negative quotes about the subject aren't permitted. They must meet the same expectations of well-sourced notability, originality, and pithiness of all quotes; QLP means we must pay more attention to fixing problems with potentially libelous quotes.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep We are dealing with WQ, not WP, so it is irrelevant whether Bluemarine is banned on WP. All that matters is whether the subject is notable and the quotes are interesting.--Cato 23:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cato. Will {{sup|{talk)}} 00:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments: 1) I have seconded Poetlister's request on the Administrator's Noticeboard for the Checkuser status of Bluemarine based on confirmed and suspected sockpuppets on Wikipedia.  Although this doesn't directly affect the validity of a Matt Sanchez article here on Wikiquote, it should concern us that there is likely sockpuppetry among the edits (see my posting on the Noticeboard for further details). 2) I want to clarify here what might be some confusion on my own part. We have had a tendency in our VfD discussions to speak of blogs in consistently negative terms, whether as claims for notability or as reliable sources.  It seems to me that this is quite a drastic generalization.  If someone has been determined to be notable as a journalist, for example, isn't his blog page as valid a source for quotes as any of his online columns?  What qualitative difference is there between, say, Christopher Hitchens' column for Slate and Andrew Sullivan's blog  for The Atlantic Monthly?  If a blog gets about 150,000 hits a day, as Sullivan does, or if Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo gets about 400,000 hits a day, do we still have concerns about the notability or reliability of these blogs as sources for quotations?  And if we agree that blogs may be acceptable in some cases, what are our criteria?  If Sanchez has been determined to be notable, doesn't that make his blog quotes notable as well, so long as they meet the usual standards of verifiability and significance? - InvisibleSun 01:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been musing about the blog issue as well. In the past, we've treated blogs and similar material whose authorship we can verify as arguably reliable sources for exact quotes (assuming the blogger him/herself is notable, which does not seem to be an issue here). Standard reliable sources are considered reliable because professional organizations have editorial boards that take responsibility for accuracy (however uneven the results may sometimes be). So when they say "So-and-So" wrote this, we trust them. What can we document about Sanchez's notable publications? Is his blog, as printed in Right Wing News, considered a reliable source by the established media for his writings? If so, we might be able to accept it. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: I think the issue here is Sanchez creating the page as "Bluemarine," and then (either as Bluemarine or one of his socks) pasting quotes from his blog onto WQ, and trying to effect a self-perpetuating "notability" to his own blog posts. Sullivan and Hitchens are indisputably notable, best-selling authors and celebrity commentators; Sanchez is not a mainstream figure, by any measure.  (Aside from two interviews on Fox News, his media presence has been on the fringes of the fringe.)  All the histrionics of Sanchez's Wikipedia antics aside, can anyone make the case that he's actually a notable figure?  And I've seen no example of "Right Wing News" recognized by any mainstream media as a reliable and notable source.  (If such recognition does exist, I'd be interested in seeing it.)


 * It looks like the WQ page will remain, which I think is fine as long as the quotes a) come from recognized, reliable sources (Salon, the Military Times, etc.), and not vanity ones, such as Sanchez's blog. --Slivowitz 03:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: While the presence or absence of an article about someone on WP is not decisive, Sanchez does have a WP article. WP policy is that a blog is a reliable source about the author of the blog.  In any case, it is absurd to say on the one hand that Sanchez himself added the quotes and on the other hand that some of the quotes are not well sourced.  Doesn't he know what he said?  I have no strong views about this article and if pressed might vote delete on grounds of quality, but Slivowitz' arguments seem unsound.--Yehudi 07:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not my argument. My argument is that Sanchez has been filling his WQ page with statements from his blog, statements which do not rise to any reasonable standard of notability.  WQ is not a self-promotional tool, and Sanchez's vanity blog (as opposed to Andrew Sullivan's, which is part of a significant magazine) does not in itself constitute notability. --Slivowitz 14:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yehudi, do you have a link to WP's policy? I'd expect it to say that a blog is a reliable source for material from the blog, not necessarily as confirmation of the author of the blog, unless the author's identity is confirmed independently. Anyone can blog, and I'd expect most blogging systems to not care if the registered user is who they say they are, short of presenting legal problems for the service. Unless and until the publishing industry implements trust mechanisms that provide a resonable equivalent to professional publishers' editorial boards, I think we must be careful about associating claimed authorship with real identity, just as we must with YouTube and Google Video usernames. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Jeff: isn't it covered by w:WP:SELFPUB? "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves" (though there are some qualifications).--Cato 17:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:SELFPUB (a section of w:Wikipedia:Verifiability) is mostly irrelevant to Wikiquote. We're not concerned with factual claims, only proper quoting. SELFPUB currently lists 7 restrictions on use of any self-published material, but for WQ, (1) notability can't be derived from self-publication anyway; (2) contentious quotes are often acceptable as long as they meet other inclusion guidelines, including pithiness and reliable sourcing; (3) self-serving isn't so much an issue as quotability, and we do frown on self-editors' judgment of their own quotability; (4) & (5) factual claims aren't inherently quotable, and blatant lies can be quotable — it's really about the quoteworthiness, and readers shouldn't consider people's quotes as representations of anything but their own thoughts. However, the last two, verifiability of authorship and dependency on self-pub sources, are very relevant. Authorship is an issue we're trying to get resolved elsewhere, and I suspect we're going to reject the blogs unless they're represented in the more traditional press already. Dependency on self-publication is effectively resolved, as there are several arguably pithy quotes from Salon and Marine Corps Times. (The latter is perhaps a bit obscure (although not to me!), but extremely relevant for this subject, and is not being used to justify notability, so we might accept it.) The rest becomes a content dispute, not a deletion argument. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep If WQ is not for self-promotion, it is not for personal attacks either. Also, Slivowitz should not be partly deleting the article during the VfD by removing properly referenced quotes; I shall revert to an earlier version and lock it until the VfD is closed.-- Poetlister  21:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete.--Inesculent 05:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's more of a content dispute than a deletion issue now. But we may have to insist that Bluemarine not edit this article, except possibly to remove inarguably poorly sourced material. We will probably also need to watch the article for agenda-pushing on all sides. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Always happy to agree with Jeff.-- Poetlister 22:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep it would appear that Slivowitz's only contributions are on the Matt Sanchez page (first being VFD) and hasn't being pro-active in any other area. It has also come to my attention that Slivowitz, is more anti-Matt Sanchez than concerned about whether or not the Matt Sanchez page meets essential requirments, layed out by wikiquote which I think it does. --McNoddy 07:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. If we decide to prohibit Bluemarine from editing here, I would repeat the request for Checkuser to look for sockpuppets based on Bluemarine/Sanchez' editing history on Wikipedia. - InvisibleSun 06:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep For now it seems that the article seems reasonably relevant, that might change..Modernist 11:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)