Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Fellowes (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) buff bills 7701 00:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Fellowes[edit]

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

Nothing here is notable: this is an advertisement for his services. Most oof the reverences are either incidental mentions or based on PR DGG ( talk ) 23:59, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Keep For the following reasons I largely support keep: (a) The references include non-incidental coverage in RS sources like USA Today, VentureBeat, BusinessWeek, and the Huffington Post, [whether or not a publicist originally pitched the story idea to the journalists at question is irrelevant as long as it's not advertorial/bylined and the masthead is RS] (b) he's been acknowledged by Antonio Villaraigosa, Bill Clinton, and Arnold Schwarzenegger, and, (c) [least important but bears mentioning] he has a doctorate. These three factors, in concert, don't fit the profile of most of the WP:BIO deletion requests that show up around here. That said, it is promotional in tone and feel. DocumentError (talk) 02:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems like an ad. Feeble cites on GS. Having a doctorate contributes not one jot to notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

In point of clarification, when I said "he has a doctorate" it was only to note that, taken in tandem with other facts, this entry does not meet the profile of the majority of vanity articles on WP and should be treated more gently than an open-and-shut case; not to suggest the holding of a Ph.D. should be a contributing factor to notability. DocumentError (talk) 20:22, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:35, 11 January 2014 (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.