Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Griswold (singer)

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 speedy keep. The article was created through the Articles for Creation process and is indeed written in a neutral point of view. It also has a significant number of reliable third party sources, meeting WP:MUSIC criterion #1. (non-admin closure) Alpha Quadrant ^talk 18:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Griswold (singer)[edit]

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

Notability

Article does not meet notability guidelines and is likely an promotional "autobiography" of a non-notable individual. There is one main contributor to the article, who I believe is its subject and thus holds a conflict of interest. He is also the one who created the article in the first place. Really205 (talk) 21:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC) — Really205 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 21:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you Tom. I was someone who made an edit just yesterday and I've further looked at the articles history and the person(s) who is the main contributor did make edits but, if you look a bit further, they were all minor edits being made as the article was pending approval. So your assumption may very well be wrong. There would have been no one else to make any edits or contributions until it was an actual article which was just a few days ago by the looks of it. There are more than enough credible sources and references throughout the article, and it would be rather disappointing if those newspapers, magazines and network TV and radio journalist were no longer considered credible. I feel that you shouldn't and can't just delete and article because of your personal opinions and/or assumptions which is what you are basing you nomination on. Look at the article and you will see that there are clear and reputable sources backing all information with in it. So if you could please further explain your use of "non-notable", because based on what you said I could send a list of hundreds of "non-notable" people that are in an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.222.244 (talk) 19:49, 19 July 2011 (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.