Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Norman (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 keep. X clamation point 01:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Norman[edit]

Declining db-spam speedy deletion, taking to AfD; the article was deleted 4 times in 2007 for non-notability (3 times as CSD A7), and it's not clear the problems are solved. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning towards a keep on this one. Looking at the list of newspaper articles (at the bottom of the article), I see a dozen+ mentions that are slightly more than trivial. Most of the articles are about the subject's uncle, but they also mention Matt Norman, usually almost trivially, but a tiny bit more. I think this, along with some of his film credits is probably enough to establish notability. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the many on-topic references and links provided in the article show beyond a doubt that this actor has received significant attention worthy of being recorded. Satisfies WP:BIO. -Atmoz (talk) 17:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the problems with this page lie not with notability.--Perry Middlemiss (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Usual case of "article isn't great, but that isn't a reason to delete". Subject appears to satisfy notability. Orderinchaos 01:18, 28 March 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.