Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Dolman

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 Delete - snowball closure. Marasmusine (talk) 12:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Dolman[edit]

Delete Appears to be written almost entirely by the person himself; autobiography. Non-notable. Fails Google test. One ref which can be checked is dead. Award seems pretty minor anyway. Not notable for winning one award for game which 'pedia doesn't even have an article on. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 21:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note. The primary editor of this article hastily created the Avoidance (video game) article when I mentioned it had no article. It is poorly written and also includes one dead reference. It should also be deleted, failing the Google test, but I haven't gotten around to it. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 21:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article per WP:OR and WP:SPS Lets drinkTea 21:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - comes nowhere near meeting WP:BLP or WP:Notability. dramatic (talk) 22:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. dramatic (talk) 22:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I added the AfD for the video game as well. They both fail the notability guidelines. §FreeRangeFrog 22:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, see nothing on NZ Herald, Stuff, Google, fails WP:N. XLerate (talk) 00:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability. This wasn't a completely wasted two minutes though, the article itself is fairly amusing. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Not a notable person even if people could find him on Google. Seems to be written by the person himself to gain publicity.Gilagod101 (talk) 02:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I find it amusing the he provides a newspaper ref for his date of birth. However he was born on a Sunday ( allegedly ) so there was almost certainly no paper published that day ( even if he was born early enough to meet the deadline ). - SimonLyall (talk) 06:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this smells of a hoax to me. I can't find anything on the award mentioned except in these two articles; and The original editor and now an IP have made attack-type edits (see the infobox). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:33, 27 February 2009 (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.