Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clay Matvick

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The result was keep or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clay Matvick[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability. A few sources (I've two, several passing mentions (see Google News in particular). Certainly enough to establish a few lines of job history. But none of the sources I've seen "address the subject directly in detail", to quote WP:NOTE. I think I was trying to be too pedantic about WP:NOTE, and wish to withdraw the nomination. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (added by nom): The ESPN source is arguable, I guess I feel it's iffy (not really secondary, promotional in context). --j⚛e decker ^talk 17:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A lot of more-than-trivial coverage in many reliable sources from 2002 throu 2010[1] would seem to poke nicely at WP:GNG... and adding them to the article might seem a surmountable issue. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As the comment said above, this sportscaster has significant amount of coverage and therefore should be considered notable. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 01:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment I'm reviewing my nomination based on the comments, etc., by Michael Q, Parent5446. I have been through, as I believe I did before, the text of every readable article in that search on the first page and well into the second--I did do searches on Gnews, Gweb, Goobs before. In reviewing these results so far, I haven't found an entry yet that did more than identify the subjects job title. Perhaps I'm being blind, and if so I apologize, would either of you be willing to point me at two articles ("signficant coverage") which provide more than a sentence worth of information ("address the subject directly in detail")? Or even one, not counting the ESPN bio I mentioned in the original nom? --j⚛e decker ^talk 01:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Took a deep breath, reviewed the sources more. I think I was being too pedantic about WP:NOTE. Thanks for your patience, folks. --j⚛e decker ^talk 01:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my own observations above. As I commented about surmountable issues, and with a grateful nod to the nominator's courteous withdrawal, this one is now on my personal list of articles that I will improve in the next day or so. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for being willing to improve the article! --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some expansion and got his awards sourced. More to do... more to do. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this just goes to show that the article can be cleaned up and should not be deleted. This AfD should probably be speedily kept, as not even the nominator is in favor of delete anymore. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 21:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed (as nom), as an "involved party" it's inappropriate for me to do it, I believe. I believe even non-admins can close an entirely non-controversial speedy keep, however, as per WP:SK. --j⚛e decker ^talk 22:00, 26 June 2010 (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.