Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Tibbenham

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. Courcelles 23:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Tibbenham[edit]

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

WP:RS - Lacks reliable sources WP:GNG - Does not meet notability guidelines. WP:PROMO / WP:SPAM - Article has been edited my a blocked editor who is believe to be WP:PAID. PeterWesco (talk) 02:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. czar · · 03:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete. as I wrote in my prod, "non notable director, lacks multiple significant roles, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. mix of pr and non reliable sources". duffbeerforme (talk) 10:54, 1 May 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, czar · · 03:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 11:55, 11 May 2013 (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.