Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew VanDyke

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. Coverage in the article's references was found to be sufficient for the subject to meet WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Gongshow ^Talk 20:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew VanDyke[edit]

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

Vanity page for an inconsequential figure Liquesce (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – VanDyke appears to be the subject of substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources. The nominator's observation should have been brought at WP:BLPN. Having addressed some rather egregious problems in the prose – from markup style to WP:COAT, WP:PEACOCK, and WP:BLP – a clearer picture shows this subject passes WP:GNG. JFHJr (㊟) 01:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator's assertion that the fellow is "inconsequential" seems more of opinion and less of proper reflection of numerous reliable sources that offer significant coverage toward this person and his activities as a journalist and filmmaker. The work done by User:JFHJr shows that addressable issues are rarely cause for deletion. Kudos, JFHJr... kudos. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Significant media coverage. Article needs work, but meets notability guidelines and has sufficient meat. Rishi.bedi (talk) 08:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - No valid argument for deletion exists in the nomination. Topic easily passes WP:GNG. See references section of the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:51, 20 November 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.