Talk:Michael Mastro

Two more refs to work with - anyone?

• http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml
• http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2019559789_mastroringsxml.html Ottawahitech (talk) 19:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
• Ottawahitech (talk) 19:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

More refs nov 10

http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2019644569_mastrorejectedxml.html

http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2019526116_mastroextraditionxml.html

http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2019530735_mastrohuntxml.html

http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2019631449_mastrohearingxml.html

http://www.thenewstribune.com/2012/10/24/2343581/seattle-developer-mastro-arrested.html

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Captured-Medina-developer-Mastro-wife-indicted-3982488.php

http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/blog/2012/11/mastros-must-remain-in-jail-french.html

http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/blog/2012/10/mastros-captured-lake-annecy-near.html?page=all Ottawahitech (talk) 01:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903374004576583081918294252.html Ottawahitech (talk) 15:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/10/14/40616.htm

More refs nov 17

http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/blog/2012/11/mastros-plan-to-appeal-to-french.html

http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/blog/2012/11/mastros-raising-legal-fund.html

http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/blog/2012/11/mastros-testify-in-french-court-hearing.html

http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2019542345_mastro28m.html

http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/blog/2012/11/mastros-mental-competency-could-be-an.html

http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/blog/2012/11/mastros-big-rings-in-custody.html

http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/blog/2012/11/mastros-big-rings-in-custody.html

http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2012/11/03/mastros-french-lawyer-lays-out.html Ottawahitech (talk) 15:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

References

Name change discussion (The Bankruptcy and extradition of Michael Mastro → Michael Mastro)

This discussion was moved from User talk:Patchy1

Hi, On 27 October 2012‎ you (Patchy1) moved this page I created to Michael Mastro with this edit summary:

This article should be about the person, with the bankruptcy/extradition as a section of that article

I believe that the original name better represents the direction his article is taking (for example bankruptcy issues relating to Linda Mastro). Could you possibly reverse your move? Thanks in advance. Ottawahitech (talk) 00:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

A biographical article name must be the name of the person, in this case Michael Mastro, as per WP:NCP. For example, Barack Obama is the article, not U.S. President Barack Obama. So unless there is a very special reason, the title will not be changing. -- Patchy1 00:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLP1E. --87.79.111.52 (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus After well over a month there's no agreement on whether this article is, or should be, on the person or the affair involving him. This may be a topic to be revisited when the article is cleaned up. Cúchullain ^t/c 15:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

---

---

Michael Mastro → Bankruptcy and extradition of Michael Mastro – This article was created as The Bankruptcy and extradition of Michael Mastro on October 24, 2012[1]. The same day it was renamed to Michael Mastro with edit summary, "This article should be about the person, with the bankruptcy/extradition as a section of that article"[2]. That reasoning seems faulty to me. It makes no sense to name an article about one aspect of someone's life after the person rather than after the aspect. Now, if this person's entire life is notable and this article is about that, then it makes sense to make this into a biography named after him, the subject. But if the subject is only the bankruptcy and extradition, then it's really about that, and not about his entire life, so I think the title should reflect that. But it's obviously a controversial issue (see above), hence this proposal. What do you think? Relisted. BDD (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC) --Born2cycle (talk) 18:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC) Removed "The" from proposed title. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I am no expert (just the person who moved it, also the one with the faulty reasoning haha), but the only instance I have seen where something like this gets its own article, is when the person is notable in their own right and there is too much information in the one article, so a split is suggested. We'll see what the experts say. -- Patchy1 20:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• I am also no expert (and I do not possess article moving powers), but here is an example of another such title: Shooting of Trayvon Martin (I think). Ottawahitech (talk) 20:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment – given the topic, not really a bio, the move sounds plausible. But not with "The". Dicklyon (talk) 23:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Good point - I've updated the proposal accordingly. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - all sources (in Google Books before the bankruptcy) are to Michael R. Mastro. There is another Michael Mastro notable in Google Books, an off-Broadway actor. The New York Times Theater Reviews 1997-1998 - Page 243 New York Times - 2001 "Three musicians, played by Frank Wood, Michael Mastro and Joseph Lyfe Taylor, sit around a cassette player listening to the tape of a fervent, wrenching trumpet solo." etc. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

  Correction, Michael Mastro (actor) Broadway, and film http://www.themichaelmastro.com/bio.html http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0557838/ . He's notable and is going to inevitably need an article, though no links intended for him appear to already be misdirecting to the property tycoon at present. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

  Stub created and both articles hatnote-disambiguated. No particular opinion on this RM other than for WP:BLP issues I don't think we can have a title which is BLP-ambiguous in relation to a current criminal case. Bankruptcy and Extradition of Michael R. Mastro, Michael R. Mastro or Michael Mastro (businessman) would all be possibles - there is a serious BLP concern to leave at current ambiguous title. As regards the Bankruptcy and Extradition of.... expansion, that would depend if there's anything particularly news/unique worthy about the legal aspects of either the Bankruptcy or extradition. In the case of the latter there may well be, but current sources don't demonstrate that it is especially notable in legal terms. Overall it seems more a bag of business/bio/legal/local notability elements. Not against the long title, some things in favour, but happy to see what others say. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

  • That would be an issue for whoever creates an article about the off-Broadway actor, should it ever be created. News sources seem to all be using Michael Mastro for this one. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Outside of news, most of the references about this guy seem to include the middle initial; most book refs without the middle initial are for the actor. Are you saying we should prefer the more concise, more ambiguous, title nevertheless? Dicklyon (talk) 03:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
      • I'm saying that prior to the existence of Michael Mastro (actor) there was no reason to include the R. That's moot now. However, if we are to have an article on the businessman, presuming there is a primary topic here, I think Michael Mastro (businessman) is better than Michael R. Mastro, considering usage in reliable news sources, which is where most people learn of him. I see no reason to include the R. in the title proposed for this article. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
• Keep as Michael Mastro. The reason we do not use the name of the person when they are only notable for an event, and make the article about the event, not the person, is to avoid using their name, which is subverted if the title chosen includes their name. I would suggest that if their name appears anywhere in the title, the title be chosen just like any other person. I have no preference whether it is Michael Mastro, Michael R. Mastro, or Michael Mastro (businessman), except that less work is needed if it is simply left where it is. In a year or so primary topic can be used if anyone brings it up. Apteva (talk) 06:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• The reason we do not use the name of the person when they are only notable for an event, and make the article about the event, not the person, is to avoid using their name, which is subverted if the title chosen includes their name. -- That is the very first time I've ever come across that line of reasoning. Consider articles like Death of Ian Tomlinson. That article is about the, well, death of Ian Tomlinson. This article is not actually about Michael Mastro so much as about the affair surrounding him. Nothing, really nothing, and most certainly not your own private reasoning above, speaks against naming the article accordingly. --87.79.111.52 (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

  So if this was the case, the article about Ian Tomlinson is not allowed to be an article about Ian, but only about his death? Why is his birthdate included? This is to me the extreme of silliness. If a 1E person has their name in the article, just name the article with their name. If someone adds something notable about their life, then that is fine. Apteva (talk) 23:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

  I'm having as much trouble following your reasoning here as I have had at WT:PLACE. That article is correctly named Death of Ian Tomlinson for the same reasoning used to support this proposal. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• Ok, Aptava, this is going to be my final reply to you since you are apparently not even trying to argue coherently. Why is Tomlinson's birthdate included? Um, why don't you ask the obviously underinformed bunch of hacks who promoted that article to featured status? It might be --but that's mere guesswork on my part-- that his birthdate is within the scope of an article about his death. --87.79.111.52 (talk) 23:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• Rename WP:BLP1E. We do not avoid using the name of a person for 1E events unlike what Apteva is saying, since we have many 1E events with the principal's name as part of the article name. Since this person is 1E notable, it should only cover the event, not be a biography, and WP:PRECISE using the name of the person as the article name would not be precise enough to define the scope of the article, as the title's implicit scope for an eponymous title would be their entire life. -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 08:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. If the article is to be renamed, wouldn't sentence casing make it "Bankruptcy and extradition of Michael Mastro"? 213.246.91.158 (talk) 08:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, and I'm boldly changing the capitalization in the request to reflect MOS:CT. --87.79.111.52 (talk) 18:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

    Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• Rename per User:70.24.250.26. I wish I had something to add to 70.24's reasoning, but there's nothing left to add except maybe underscoring the fact that Apteva's reasoning is entirely made up and has not even a remote relation to actual best practice in article naming. --87.79.111.52 (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support, as nom. I made this proposal because of the moves back and forth, the subsequent discussion above, and because I thought it deserved more input. Frankly, I wasn't sure it was the right thing to do. But thanks to 70.24.240.26, I now am convinced. Per WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E, which states: "The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person.". I think that applies in this case perfectly, and it is misleading to title this article as if it is a biography, when it is only about the event. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Sorry for jumping in here at this late stage, however, it just dawned on me that the title of this article should also contain Linda Mastro's name. Yes, she apparently was not involved in the building of the business and its eventual collapse (or at least - no references mention it so far), but she seems to have become a party to criminal proceedings and is at the moment waiting in a French jail for extradition along with her husband. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose move, keep at Michael Mastro. To quote WP:BLP1E: In some cases, however, a person famous for only one event may be more widely known than the event itself, for example, the Tank Man. In such cases, the article about the event may be most appropriately named for the person involved. The shorter name also meets the concision requirement of WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. Since the article scope should include the subject's work as a real estate developer, his default on over $600 mil in debt, and events related to his arrest; any attempt name this article after the events is going to be atrociously complex and bordering on silly. Of course, BLP applies to all information about living people (not just biographies), so the name of the article will have zero bearing on the verifiability or tone of the content. As noted in the BLP guideline above, the scope of the article with this concise name can still include mention of Linda if appropriate. VQuakr (talk) 01:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Since the article scope should include the subject's work as a real estate developer, his default on over $600 mil in debt, and events related to his arrest; any attempt name this article after the events is going to be atrociously complex and bordering on silly. -- Why? The article very simply is not about the otherwise barely, if at all notable person Michael Mastro. It is about the affair surrounding him. Moving the article to reflect the actual scope does not somehow render it "illegitimate" to mention known details of his life such as they are being discussed in reliable sources in conjunction with his crimes etc. Your oppose make no sense whatsoever. --87.78.54.250 (talk) 07:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I do not know how to make myself any clearer than the policy I quoted. I do think there should be information about other biographical aspects of Mastro, provided they are published in reliable sources. VQuakr (talk) 03:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

BIO1E (which you're actually quoting above, not BLP1E) does simply not agree with your stated position.

In some cases, however, a person famous for only one event may be more widely known than the event itself, for example, the Tank Man. In such cases, the article about the event may be most appropriately named for the person involved.

This is evidently one of the other cases, where the person is not more widely known than the event itself. Outside of this recent affair, Michael Mastro was --and still is-- a non-notable individual. Thus, the other part of BIO1E applies, the one you didn't quote:

Another issue arises when an individual plays a major role in a minor event. In this case, it is not generally appropriate to have an article on both the person and the event. Generally in this case, the name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident, especially if the individual is only notable for that incident and is all that that person is associated with in source coverage.

--87.78.47.225 (talk) 10:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The sentence you underlined does not apply; the subject had received coverage predating the bankruptcy. If you want to name the article The life of Michael Mastro so it can artificially become an "event" then there is probably not much I can do to change your mind. VQuakr (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Let's not confuse two related but different ideas here. First, if someone is notable for only one event, we should not have a biography about that person; only an article about the event (and titled accordingly).

However, if someone is primarily notable for one event, but also has had other coverage, we can go either way. We can decide to make an article about the person, about the event, or possibly even have two articles.

In this case I think the argument can be made that the coverage about the person not related to this event is marginally sufficient to make him notable at best - it's unclear that there is enough reliably sourced information to create a quality biography. But there is certainly plenty supporting the event. In any case, the title should reflect the content of the article. Last I checked, it was almost entirely about the event, so that's what the title should be. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Please review the article again; it is about the three major aspects of his life that have received significant coverage in secondary sources. VQuakr (talk) 00:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything there that would warrant an article about him, especially without the bankruptcy and extradition. I think it's telling that WP did not have an article about him before that, despite decades of being in the business. In short, the notable story here is the bankruptcy and extradition, not his life. The article content and title should reflect that. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article has been proposed to be deleted

deletion discussion was closed - "no consensus"
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Bankruptcy and extradition of Michael Mastro will soon be deleted, at least this is the way the deletion discussion is shaping up so far. When this happens, I believe, this talk-page will also be deleted. My apologies for everyone who participated here in good faith and particularly those I have personally invited to come here. I am attempting to preserve some of my own work on the talk page of the deletion discussion. Maybe others can find a way to preserve other aspects from this talk page. Ottawahitech (talk) 19:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC) I changed the wording of this section heading from "will soon be deleted" to "has been proposed to be deleted". --Born2cycle (talk) 19:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC) Hi guys. Might just like to be careful of how these things are worded, with friendly reference to Wikipedia:Canvassing. Highlighting that it has been nominated would normally be considered okay. Pre-judging consensus and urging people to take note (code: "go there now and vote") might get you into trouble. No suggestion that any of it is malicious but I would hate to see anyone dragged to WP:ANI for mis-wording a helpful note. Cheers, Stalwart111 00:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC).

French media reports

For the first time I see entries popping up when I look up Michael Mastro. Can these French language references be used on the page, and if so how does one go about translating them? Thanks in advance, XOttawahitech (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• I came to check if anyone answered my question and discovered the link I provided above is now dead. So I googled a new one:http://www.lalsace.fr/actualite/2013/05/23/le-voilier-de-mike-horn-saisi. I tried to google-translate this and came up with this text:

"Chambery A pair of Americans accused of fraudulent bankruptcy, threatened with extradition. The public prosecutor requested Chambery yesterday a favorable extradition of American real estate developer Michael Mastro and his wife Linda, prosecuted by U.S. courts in a case of fraudulent bankruptcy notice."

I would greatly appreciate help here. XOttawahitech (talk) 14:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Conflict in sources

According to Forbes the Masto's were indicted by a federal jury on October 25, 2012, but Now the Seattle Times says that the indictment was handed down in November, 2012. How should this be handled? XOttawahitech (talk) 20:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Category:Extradition removed from article

The article has been removed from Category:Extradition. I believe this is not correct because the article clearly revolves around issues of Extradition, and may be of interest to those looking at Category:Extradition. I originally added the article to this category, because none of the descendent categories such as Category:Extradited people were appropriate. I am therefore reverting this edit. Ottawahitech (talk) 02:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)