- 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 delete. Community is too small to guarantee notability for a mayor — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Gary C. Matzner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Minor league lawyer and one-time mayor of a small Florida settlement. Does not meet general notability guidelines. Biker Biker (talk) 11:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Person in question is not notable for being a lawyer, but because he is the co-founder of a significant city in South Florida and is integral to the community's history. (http://www.pinecrest-fl.gov/index.aspx?page=66) Gary Matzner also spearheaded the committee that saved Parrot Jungle, which is a world famous (and notable) landmark.
GROUP TO EVALUATE PARROT JUNGLE SITE The Village of Pinecrest has agreed to create a Parrot Jungle committee that will evaluate the use of the property in the event the village can purchase it. A private group, Preserve the Jungle, headed by Gary Matzner had been the lone fund-raising voice for the village in its bid to come up with between $9 million and $12 million to purchase the property at 11000 SW 57th Ave. Pinecrest Mayor Evelyn Greer said she was waiting for Parrot Jungle to sign a lease with the city of Miami... >> Purchase complete article, of 236 words Miami Herald - April 18, 1996 - 3 NEIGHBORS KE
Many of the sources that quote him are in the Miami Herald and their archive is behind a paywall. Example of an article about how his ideas for incorporation led to many cities in South Florida making similar changes.
"METRO TO ALLOW PINECREST TO VOTE ON WHETHER IT WILL BECOME A CITY Yet another pocket of Dade County took a significant step toward cityhood Thursday when the aspiring Village of Pinecrest was given the green light to take a vote on its future. Metro commissioners, some still complaining the incorporation process was moving too fast, agreed to set aside Sept. 19 for Pinecrest voters to cast ballots on forming their own government. It's the same date commissioners set aside for people residing in the North Central Dade community some want to..."
He meets all of the following critera: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[4] and independent of the subject.[5] If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.[6] Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EricJason (talk • contribs) 11:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry but he simply does not meet the notability guidelines at WP:POLITICIAN, or anywhere else on WP:PEOPLE. --Biker Biker (talk) 11:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - article seems to rely mainly on the village website and his biog on a company website. Neither of these are what could be called independent reliable sources. I can't see any significant news coverage online, apart from the couple of quotes in the Miami herald. Sionk (talk) 13:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I'm sorry you've been treated so poorly in your short time with Wikipedia, EricJason. Template:uw-delete1: The birth_date parameter about this about living person was unsourced did not have a reference. If someone disagreed with your birth_date parameter change,[1] they could have merely changed it back. Your removing the birth year was not likely to be controversial, so I don't see any justification for posting Template:uw-delete1 on your user talk page and threatening you with blocking. Template:uw-copyright: Also, the statement that you linked to copyvio works wasn't true. The commons uploaded image included the CC-by-SA-3.0 license. Another editor removing that image from the article was wrong because the image only was tagged as possible copyvio and could stay in the article until that issue was resolved, particularly since you included the CC-by-SA-3.0 license in the commons uploaded image and that is what it was licensed as.[2] I don't see any justification for posting Template:uw-copyright on your user talk page. Your adding that image back into the article via link to commons was fine and another user restored it after it was removed again. Template:uw-vandalism4: - The two external links you added to the article were to sites that contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources, so I'm not sure why those further reading links were removed when the article only was a start article level. In particular to your link to the "Matzner's Attorney Bio from Kopelowitz Ostrow," that was not a link to "a Law Firm website and qualifies as Spam."[3] If it's not his present Official Website, it certainly contains information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources. Adding those two external links to the article absolutely was not vandalism or even level 4 vandalism and there was no basis for posting a Template:uw-vandalism4 to your talk page. Thank for letting me know that no one contacted you to make things right with you.[4] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary C. Matzner: As though the above wasn't enough, the Gary C. Matzner then was nominated for deletion directly after all the Template:uw-delete1, Template:uw-copyright, and Template:uw-vandalism4 posts to your talk page based on the four edits you made to the Gary C. Matzner article. The Gary C. Matzner page has been in Wikipedia since August 2006 - for more than five years. Common sense would indicted that any U.S. mayor is going to generate enough coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject for a stand-alone article to meet WP:GNG. I've found plenty of online reliable source material for the biography and there likely is tons more in a library not online. Obviously, Keep. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Unforunatly, no, the vast majority of U.S. mayors are not sufficently notable for inclusion, and the fact the article's been around for a WP:LONGTIME is not a reason to keep. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - unfortunatly, the references proviced, while impressive at a glance, are either not independent of the subject or are passing, standardized mentions. Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The subject does not meet the basic criteria given at Wikipedia:Notability (people), i.e., "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The sources cited that are independent are simple promotional blurbs, or merely give passing mentions of or quotes from the subject. -- Donald Albury 14:08, 19 June 2012 (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.