Talk:Mathew Klickstein

Sources

Here's a rundown of the sources, prior to my cleanup.

1. NY Daily News. This is OK, although you might get a little bit of pushback since the NYDN is a tabloid. However it does go into depth about the book, which is good. This is usable enough, but it's not the strongest source.
2. Globe and Mail. This only briefly mentions the book and as such, is a WP:TRIVIAL source. Trivial mentions cannot show notability regardless of where it's posted or how many trivial mentions are used. In general you should avoid including these unless you're using it to back up a claim that cannot be verified any other way. Since we already have one decent enough source to show that the book exists, there's really no reason to include these and listing them only makes the article seem more promotional. To put it bluntly, including a lot of trivial mentions makes an article look bad because on here we're used to seeing people list a ton in the hopes that it'll show more notability for a topic that likely doesn't pass notability guidelines. You probably didn't know this, but this is why you need to be very careful about this - especially since there appears to be a COI here.
3. Washington Post. This is another trivial mention. It cannot show notability.
4. The Atlantic. Another trivial mention, cannot show notability.
5. DCist. This is a notification of an event, so it won't show notability. It's generally assumed that a creative professional will go on a tour to promote their works, so appearing at a festival doesn't show notability on here. Now if someone wrote an article about him that went into depth about Klickstein and the book, that'd be different but all we have here is a PR blurb.
6. EW. This is kind of iffy. The article is fairly brief and it's not a bestseller list per se, so it wouldn't really fall under that category of coverage. It is a "best of" list but it doesn't appear to be one of the big official lists, rather a more casual one that was written. This is the type of thing that will be dependent upon the person and overall this is a fairly weak source to base notability on. I'd say that it's sort of usable, but I wouldn't use it to determine overall notability. In other words, if this article was up for deletion it'd likely be dismissed by most editors as a likely trivial source.
7. Publishers Weekly. This is a routine announcement that the book will release, so it's a trivial source at best. It does mention a "best of" list but it wouldn't be considered a "best of" in this capacity since they're just listing stuff that will release. It's very different from their actual "best of" lists like this one.
8. Parade. This is the same as the EW list, but this one is a bit better since it goes into a little more about the book overall and why they chose it. This is one that might be potentially dismissed by others, but I'd say that this is more usable. Still, it's a fairly weak source to base overall notability on.
9. Maui News. This would be considered a trivial source. The article isn't about Klickstein, rather about the show itself and he won't automatically inherit notability by working as a casting producer. (WP:NOTINHERITED) Notability is usually only inherited when someone is in an extremely visible role like director or host, although these don't guarantee notability either. It's fairly common for some hosts or directors to only redirect to the show/film they're known for. Basically, what you want here is coverage that goes into depth about Klickstein. Stuff that just mentions him in passing doesn't count, unless they're claiming something overwhelmingly notable like winning a major award (think Pulitzers or SAG Awards).
10. Daily Camera. He's mentioned several times in this, so this would likely be seen as usable by the majority of people.
11. Blushing Books. This is an e-commerce site, so it should not be used as a source at all. Using these sites can make a page seem promotional and non-neutral, as linking to it can be seen as an endorsement that you should buy the book.
12. Ink. This came up 404'd. However I need to state that just publishing or writing will not give notability, as it's expected that a writer will write and be published somewhere.
13. The Register-Guard. This is sort of a brief mention, as the article focuses on Alba and Klickstein is more of an aside. Notability isn't inherited by him working with Alba.

Overall this article's sources are fairly weak. Only a very few of them could really show notability and of those, many are the type that would likely be dismissed if this was sent to WP:AfD. It's really not a strong start for an article.

I'll clean this up and see what I can find source-wise, but offhand I'm leaning towards declining this since the sourcing is so very weak. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Citation Needed

Going through this article, I reviewed the phrases marked with a Citation Needed and I think analyzing the article itself along with other publicly available knowledge of Klickstein from his other interviews, it is safe to say the article from Flavorwire does indeed have numerous errors:

1. "Miley Cyrus is working with John Kricfalusi, the creator of Ren and Stimpy, on the artwork for her Dangerous tour." [THE TOUR WAS CALLED "BANGERZ," NOT "DANGEROUS." MILEY CYRUS NEVER HAD A TOUR CALLED "DANGEROUS."]

2. "I was talking with the guy who wrote for DC, and he made a really good point ..." [Makes no sense as edited this way. Klickstein was talking here about a friend of his who writes (not WROTE) for DC Comics. An important point left out that makes the statement unclear, nonsensical and erroneous.]

3. "Is Skeeter black? They kind of joke about it in the show, because he’s the blue one." [Author edited Klickstein's statement here in a way that is not consistent with information in his own book. Author of article was mistaken in her reporting this as part of the interview which she noted at the end was "cut and edited for clarity." This point has been discussed at length in various articles and in Klickstein's book SLIMED!, as discussed by show creator Jim Jinkins, with whom Klickstein remains friendly to this day. It has been stated multiple times in the past that the creator of the show was surprised some people saw Skeeter as African-American and that the choice of the multiple colors of the characters on Doug was intentional as to not have race be an issue on the show. Example referencing this point in Klickstein's book SLIMED!: https://www.bitchmedia.org/post/diversity-in-nickelodeons-golden-age?utm_source=collegecandy.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=collegecandy ]

4. "I would be offended if one of the friends on Clifford the Big Red Dog had a friend who was in a wheelchair." [The reason Klickstein brought up this particular somewhat arbitrary show in the discussion was because he was a fan of it and knows there was a kid in a wheelchair on it. The author of the interview here was mistaken once again. Klickstein is an avid fan of the late John Ritter and has and continues to work with people with disabilities. He knows the show had a character with a wheelchair in it. This is an erroneous statement the author of article incorrectly states here.]

5. "You had Joe Torres on Hey Dude who was Hispanic and Native American because he was in Arizona, because there’s going to be someone who is that race there." [Again, in Klickstein's book SLIMED!, he clearly has people who worked on the show and cast the show -- Michael Koegel -- along with cast members talking about how Joe Torres was Hispanic PLAYING a Native American character. Once again, author was mistaken in how she put this part of interview together.]

Here's the part of the article where author incorrectly suggests Klickstein is not Jewish: "If I were Indian or Jewish, for example, and watched something where the characters are Jewish ..."

[Klickstein is not only Jewish, but he is a member of the Jewish Book Council and traveled with the JBC less than two weeks after this article was published. https://www.jewishbookcouncil.org/author/mathew-klickstein He was also recently a senior reporter for the Baltimore Jewish Times. This erroneous statement on behalf of the author's "editing" the piece "for clarity" led to other blogs and pieces that also wrongly claimed Klickstein was not Jewish, as well. ]