Talk:Nathan Newman (writer)

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
	This article was accepted from this draft on 20 March 2025 by reviewer Significa liberdade (talk · contribs).

England

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies

Writing

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Writing, a WikiProject interested in improving Wikipedia's coverage of content related to the fields of rhetoric, composition, technical communication, literacy, and language studies.WritingWikipedia:WikiProject WritingTemplate:WikiProject WritingWriting
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Novels

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Literature

	Literature portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

Too much first-person, unreliable sources

Sorry, but some source from College doesn't cut it... please be sure to have a myriad of independent sources backing you up in order for a wikipage to be made about this individual. 2405:6E00:2239:7467:9550:77FD:B458:B7FB (talk) 07:51, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the following paragraph, since it seems to be about a non-notable award from a non-notable magazine (with a Wordpress website) judged by a single judge.

Their work has appeared in several magazines, and their 2020 story "GoodBuy!" was the recipient of the James Knudsen Prize for Fiction from Bayou Magazine, judged by Lori Ostlund.^[1]^{[non-primary source needed]}

I also removed this other award description for the same reasons:

... won the 2024 Whirling Prize from Etchings Press for best fiction debut.^[2]^{[non-primary source needed]}

Non-primary sourcing would be needed to show that these awards are notable, and "several magazines" is vague. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 06:01, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Past Fiction Contest Winners". Bayou Magazine. WordPress. 2022-03-01. Retrieved 2025-03-08.
^ Wolfe, Anastasia (17 December 2024). "The Etchings Press Whirling Prize". Etchings Press.

Move request for "Nathan Newman"

I would like to propose a move for this article. The writer, Nathan Newman, is the most notable individual associated with the name "Nathan Newman." Their work has received substantial coverage in reliable sources, including the New York Times, The Financial Times, The Washington Post, NPR, and the recognition should be reflected in the title. The current disambiguation as "Nathan Newman (writer)" is unnecessary and potentially confusing as Newman is also a filmmaker. According to Wikipedia’s guidelines, the article for the most notable person with a given name should use the unqualified name. I propose moving this article to "Nathan Newman" and renaming the current unqualified article – that of a college engineering professor, to "Nathan Newman (professor)". Note that two of the engineering professor's six sources are now dead links, and three of the others are from a college website. WinnFree44 (talk) 15:16, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:RM for how to request a move. An article about a different person is currently located at Nathan Newman, and you would need to propose what to do about that. The request submitted to WP:RMTR has been contested, so a full discussion will be needed if you want to continue to pursue this suggestion. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 06:01, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 April 2025

It has been proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly.

Links: current log • target log • direct move

– Nathan Newman is the most notable individual associated with the name "Nathan Newman". The current disambiguation as "Nathan Newman (writer)" is unnecessary and potentially confusing as Newman is a screenwriter and film director as well as an author. According to Wikipedia’s guidelines, the article for the most notable person with a given name should use the unqualified name? WinnFree44 (talk) 15:36, 27 March 2025 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 05:04, 2 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 03:41, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article was only created in the last couple of days, and I'm not sure there's any evidence that it's a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC yet, with Nathan Newman the engineering professor being the other contender. Note that UtherSRG reverted a move on the engineer's article earlier today. Probably a disambiguation page, with neither topic being primary, will be the eventual outcome but I'd suggest leaving it a while for the longer-term page views etc. to become clear. — Amakuru (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to keep this discussion open. As per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, where the primary topic should be the one most commonly associated with the name and especially in regards to long-term significance, Nathan Newman (writer) is the clear primary topic. The current disambiguation as 'Nathan Newman (writer)' is both limiting and quite misleading due to Newman being notable in other creative fields. Additionally, Nathan Newman (engineer) does not appear to meet the primary topic criteria at all. Two of his six sources are now dead links, and the remaining ones are primarily from the same college website, limiting any independent verification of his prominence. Especially e.g. in comparison to major independent sources on Nathan Newman (writer)'s page – New York Times, Washington Post, NPR etc. So I do think the unqualified name 'Nathan Newman' is the most appropriate and natural title. 82.14.135.82 (talk) 00:41, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Above comments copied from WP:RMT (permalink above). @WinnFree44, UtherSRG, and Amakuru: courtesy pings. I will notify IP on their user talk. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 05:04, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I came here from the Nathan Newman engineer article, which I did some work on. I agree, however, that a writer whose book was chosen as one of the best of 2024 by New Yorker mag is more likely to be searched for by readers than the engineer, even though he is a member of the National Academy of Engineers. So I support either a move proposal or a disambiguation page. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:07, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be specific, and without meaning to cast aspersions on his accomplishments, I believe the engineer is not a member of the National Academy of Engineering. He is a member of the National Academy of Inventors, which is rather different and less notable. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:58, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the points made above. I support moving forward with the move proposal. The writer Nathan Newman seems to have garnered more significant recognition, especially given the prominent media coverage and should probably be the primary topic – and therefore 'Nathan Newman' is more fitting for the article. As for the engineer – somewhat notable in his own field, but certainly not likely to be searched as much as the writer, and as mentioned it appears that he doesn’t really meet the threshold for primary topic status, with a limited number of independent sources etc. Thus, a disambiguation page seems like a reasonable alternative? 149.40.127.191 (talk) 12:44, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mis-remembered, thanks for the correct information. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:03, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose 1st support 2nd. Per my earlier comments at the RMTR, neither topic is primary. The engineer is a notable member of the National Academy of Inventors and has been primary for all these years. — Amakuru (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that the Engineer Nathan Newman needs a disambiguation move. Though in support of Nathan Newman (writer) being moved to the primary, what about the fact that Nathan Newman (writer) is a film director and tv show runner, as well as an author? Feels confusing, and potentially misleading? WinnFree44 (talk) 13:51, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I support Nathan Newman (writer) → Nathan Newman

Nathan Newman → Nathan Newman (engineer)'

I agree with HouseOfChange that a writer whose book was chosen as one of the best of 2024 by The New Yorker is more likely to be searched for by readers than the engineer. 82.14.135.82 (talk) 10:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "Past Fiction Contest Winners". Bayou Magazine. WordPress. 2022-03-01. Retrieved 2025-03-08.

[2] Wolfe, Anastasia (17 December 2024). "The Etchings Press Whirling Prize". Etchings Press.

[1]

[2]