Talk:Matt Weinhold

noted this in the edit...

Have added additional sources - please note, I am not sure - we have the LA Times, profiles in Voyage LA and Shoutout LA, along with proof of awards - I'm not sure what else we're looking for in terms of secondary sources and additional notability - along with a robust imdb link. Looking at additional famous people published with articles - this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toru_Kawai for a notable person only links to a blog post and imdb.

I'm at a loss for "secondary" sources as none of the sources here were not published by the individual (which would make them primary) - unless we're now considering interviews done by publications to be "primary" now?

This individual has written for well-known television properties and specials in addition to their comedy career - you can already find them listed for their award-winning turns in wikipedia in the Seattle and San Francisco Comedy Competitions past winner sections/pages. Is the issue that this person is mostly behind the scenes and doing voice over work? Is there a higher level of notability if you're not mostly in front of the camera to pass? I mean, they had a cameo in James Cordon's last show - an actual speaking part in the skit, but that would involve linking the YouTube video, which doesn't seem as meaningful. Midwesterngal (talk) 00:59, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Also added ADDITIONAL published works, history and sources. This has expanded significantly. Midwesterngal (talk) 02:06, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Please note that blogs and interviews are not reliable independent sources, having a "robust IMDb" is irrelevant as that is not a reliable source for anything and see other stuff exists regarding Toru Kawai. Theroadislong (talk) 16:05, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure what you're referring to? I did not "add IMDB" as a source (it is recommended on entertainment), nor did I add things with "passing mentions" as sources? I added an archived SF Chronicle article that has extensive coverage of he and his group's comedy troupe that specifically centers on his performance. I also added additional reviews of works created by the person. There are four articles that are either specifically reviews of his work in standup or interviews - but those get into "primary" sources and start crossing lines, so we're forced to find additional non-interview sources. The links to the awards are forced to prove that they happened - so, yes, you got me, those are passing.

One blog is a review of the comedy album. The other "blogs" are considered go-to in Horror and Sci-Fi - Bloody Disgusting and Nameless are not a person in a basement - they're sources. Bloody Disgusting is a full-blown multi-media company now. Nameless Digest is both a website and physical media magazine that is still in print.

He is in entertainment, there are interviews with validating information. I am not clear if some of the people here that don't understand that most "news" articles about individuals in entertainment are just "interviews" in different form done by publicists? Or do we sincerely think that most newsrooms are magically sending reporters out to write amazing articles on blockbuster movies and new television shows and they magically all seem to be mentioning the same things over and over?

This is a fine line - we're up to numerous things. We can keep digging - there are some additional reviews of more material I can keep throwing up, but I fear this is going to become more of "we don't feel that this is quite enough" even though some sites are go-to for horror and sci-fi.

I am really trying here and we seem to be setting a super high bar that either can be crossed with one single role in a pet project - OR - it can never really be passed until a person has such a huge amount of work and awards that they can no longer be ignored.

Should I be dumping additional book anthology credits, podcast guest spots, appearances in documentaries, commentary tracks on classic horror and anything else where I can find an article with him listed? That's passing but it does speak to just how much of a career this person has and how well known he is. Midwesterngal (talk) 17:18, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Reliable Sources?

Okay - now this is confusing - I'll be looking at an overhaul and will be checking for additional sources where I guess I felt they were repetitive?

I want to clear each of these: Shoutout LA - an LA-based magazine that highlights all things LA - this is an interview that is used simply to highlight factual pieces about Mr. Weinhold. As I understand the policies, I cannot claim how his career is combined without citation otherwise it is opinion. San Francisco Chronicle - this comes with a byline and everything and is a review of his time in an established comedy troupe with a show run that establishes biography. Is the San Francisco Chronicle not considered reliable? Los Angeles Times - again a review and information and biography with a byline. Is the Los Angeles Times not reliable? Dr Bristol's Prescription was added because a prior comment stated "more reviews" were needed similar to the LA Times. This also shows the comedy album without relying on self-published items. Is this also not reliable? By all accounts, this appears to be independent. The Seattle and San Francisco Comedy Competition and Rondo Awards were used to avoid referencing the Wikipedia Entries. This seems to be the Catch-22 of Avoid it if you can, but don't reference the wikipedia page - but even those wikipedia pages reference their pages? So we have proof that he's involved in these awards - and is actually listed in Wikipedia for these, but we should remove these references? Bloody Disgusting Review - this is a multi-media company for horror - I have updated the byline. Again, this is a major publication for the genre much like Field & Stream would be for someone focused on Hunting. Or is this not a thing for Wikipedia? Nameless Digest - this is both a print and online journal - again, niche publication aimed at horror aficionados - is this also an issue?

I looked for a comment, but it's difficult - again, I'll continue. This person has had a long career and I can continue to find sources and reviews. I would like some better direction on this. The person is listed throughout Wikipedia already because of their writing and comedy. I'd like to get some solid advice on getting this in line. Midwesterngal (talk) 03:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

There are three seperate requirements for sources which allow them to contribute to establishing notability: see golden rule. An article published in the most reliable newspaper which is mostly based on an interview with the subject, is not independent. A thoughtful, independent, piece of analysis of the subject, which is published on somebody's blog is almost never reliable. And an unimpeachable, independent, reliably published piece that is about something else and has one sentence about the subject, does not have significant coverage.

The first and third of those may in some cases be cited as references (though unreliable sources almost never); but they cannot contribute to notability.

Major awards (not minor ones) tend to suggest that a subject will be notable, but the sources must still be there.

Does this answer any of your questions? (I haven't looked at the particulars of this draft, by the way: I'm answering in general). ColinFine (talk) 15:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

The other issue is there are almost no secondary sources about his writing or television work. I did add a blurb from Elle to support the The Dish and I added a couple sources in the lead just get them cited. The Sacramento Bee piece I added can support his work with US Weekly's Fashion Police which is not currently mentioned but the rest of that article is an interview. The SF Examiner piece, which in part is an interview, does have independent analysis about his work, etc. so is more helpful for notability (click on the blue linked page number to get the next page). The LA Times piece is ok but I do not have access to the SF Chronicle so can't comment on it. Dr. Bristol is a blog so should not be used (currently footnote #6). The Voyage LA article is entirely an interview so can only support he co-hosts a podcast but that's it. S0091 (talk) 15:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

The problem with nearly all of this is that when you're a writer or a show runner, the articles get slim. It's front of camera for articles primarily. We know of some very famous show-runners when their show becomes a cultural touchstone and everyone wants to know HOW IT CAME TO BE - and those are honestly just publicity dressed up as "news" so that they can make more money in the future.

The bar here is getting kind of ridiculous. What is even more insane to me is that we can't use actual credits to show that things were done. Because that's apparently not a thing? The actual source material.

I'm also feeling - which I feel is now valid since this is the main accusation behind me apparently getting paid thousands and thousands of dollars to get this Wikipedia article done (frankly, I have no idea how much someone would get paid, but it could not be enough with all of this) - that we're stuck with at least one of the people who turned this down being a "big deal" and everyone else here deciding it's best not to ever approve this entry.

The sheer number of other comedians I've tracked down with even fewer articles and sources is mind-boggling. Not one or two. Not even 10 - I can supply you with so many more examples. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dax_Jordan (half the sources don't even include him and one is a cast list) | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preacher_Lawson (YouTube is a source!) | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricarlo_Flanagan (all sources are obits) | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Kay (IMDB, 4 lines from an episode of DR Drew and YouTube are sources) | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Wayne_Davis - actually nominated w/1 source for deletion | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auggie_Smith (many TV Guide type sources & Local papers listing appearances which I thought was "not considered a source") | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Kent (published with 2 sources, looking for more sources) | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Cummins (references are interview appearances on podcasts, IMDB with an impressive "reading list" that is just there?) | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megan_Mooney (single source of the Daily Eastern News) | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costaki_Economopoulos (comedy album a source, wife's book a source to note he has a wife, Bob & Tom show notes to note he is on Bob & Tom show) | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Friesen (most sources are the actual material)

What I'm trying to say is that the whole "just because it's in Wikipedia" gets frustrating because I'm TRYING - but the advice is vague and it feels very much like I can't do what has been done for years and years. And the bar is insanely high for a person that's worked across multiple mediums very successfully. And has a really great following in the horror community.

If I can use the source material and podcast interviews, then I have a lot more material. Midwesterngal (talk) 22:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Taking Payments?

Okay, I've been asked to address whether or not I'm taking payments? I've addressed it multiple times and the main comment seems to be because I keep trying to improve the article (to the labyrinth of complaints that seemingly are fixed but then come back and then are new but old but fixed but not) I give the "impression" I am being paid? I'm not. And yet the thing persists and apparently if I edit it again, it is not reviewable? This is craziness. Apparently the bar for getting an article is exceedingly high, but if an editor "feels" there must be money being exchanged, that's it? Frankly, I'm perplexed other than just trying to get this right as to what the proof is? I don't have other articles published - and, to be frank, this experience has put me off of ever doing it again. I'm doing a terrible job - so clearly, not something worth getting paid for as it is. I'm told that decisions here are supposed to be factual, and yet, accusing someone of taking money is just based on feeling that if someone wants to edit an article to specifications, they're getting paid? I mean the logic of that? "Here are all of our rules - they collapse in on themselves and have a myriad of exceptions - also, don't look at current articles in Wikipedia - even 100s of them because we will tell you that their existences are all anomalies that none of our volunteer editors have had time to erase! And we'll give an anecdote about that time in Wikipedia where individual television shows once had their own pages hahaha - it won't help in your situation! And we'll tell you that fame can be defined even though it can't because we just know. We're not experts, we just follow the rules! And if you attempt to or to get help, we'll refer you back to the articles. Or wonder why someone who isn't mega-famous doesn't have a few hundred more articles about them out there and complain that they can't be famous enough. And we won't let you use their actual credited works to show that they've done actual things because only articles about them doing those things and not the actual credits count! IF YOU GET THIS FAR AND ARE STILL FAILING - well, we'll accuse you of doing this for MONEY!"

Yeah - is there some swearsies form I fill out? Midwesterngal (talk) 21:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC)