Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Titus

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Titus

Speedy as nn person was rejected by admin. But previously deleted 3 times - prod as non-notable, speedy as non-notable, speedy as advert (as Matt titus ). Basically it's just an advert for a matchmaker. andy (talk) 20:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request Could someone link the previous AfD's?Mostly cloudy (talk) 21:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There weren't any previous AfD's - three deletions here and here andy (talk) 21:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reads as an advertisement and was, I note, created by an SPA whose only other edits were to the wikipedia entry for Mr Titus' wife and thus is likely a vanity article a/o an advert for Mr. Titus' business. Aside from that, the subject is clearly not suitable for an encyclopedia. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because an article is crap, we don't get rid of it if it can be improved to an acceptable point. If you don't feel like improving it yourself put appropriate tags on the article, but don't delete the thing.--SJP (talk) 21:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reliable sources exist for this person, some basic biographical information can be found in a reliable source, and he has had numerous shows on well known channels.[1] [2] [3][4][5] [6]--SJP (talk) 21:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deletenot suitable for an encyclopaedia. Non notable and advertising. harris 578 (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I thought this was going to be a slam dunk delete. But the guy had a show on a major cable network, got a mention in the Times and his TV appearances are verifiable. Can't argue with keeping. Montco (talk) 00:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The TV show is verifiable. In addition to the NYTimes stuff, he's also been covered by USA Today and The Daily News. Vickser (talk) 23:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SJP the article can be expanded over time but the sources needed do exist. JBsupreme (talk) 05:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article needs work but passes notability. Rasadam (talk) 10:05, 1 July 2008 (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.