Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dylan Matthews


 * 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. Davewild (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Dylan Matthews

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Journalist of no special acclaim at Vox, a news website/blog. Fails WP:GNG and the additional criteria for WP:CREATIVE. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe redirect to Vox where he is mentioned. Searches for him here, here (browser, not many good sources), here and here provided several links but all connected to Vox. Not notable by himself at this time. SwisterTwister   talk  06:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * With the caveat that I've expanded the article (and so am responsible for maybe 1/4th of its current content), keep. Matthews obtained significant recognition both inside the Washington Post and from various media outlets for his work on the Post's blog "Know More". There's plenty of coverage of Matthews's work on Know More from multiple independent sources, which I've added to the article. I think the article as it currently stands passes all the criteria outlined under the General Notability Guideline on WP:N. Johnleemk | Talk 21:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to either Vox (website) or Washington Post. Even with the expansion, the coverage is mostly about the WaPo blog and not the individual. The sources going for the individual are the "under 25" award and maybe the WaPo internal award, but with everything else, it sums up to a mention on the article of a larger project, and not enough information to warrant its own dedicated article without stretching his cameos in the references really thin and using quotes where paraphrasing would suffice. – czar   22:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it'd certainly make sense to create a new Wonkblog article from the content here and redirect appropriately. I don't think redirecting to Vox or the main WaPo article is a good idea; Wonkblog/KnowMore don't make sense to cover in detail on the main WaPo article, and they aren't part of Vox (though they are arguably predecessors). There's also adequate precedent set for giving WaPo blogs their own articles, e.g., The Volokh Conspiracy. Johnleemk | Talk 23:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * A redirect to Vox would be fine because the individual is mentioned there by name. A redirect to WaPo would be fine because a Wonkblog/KnowMore article should be incubated there first summary style. If it has enough sources to spin out, so be it, but that's outside my purview with this AfD. – czar   23:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Either keep or redirect to Wonkblog article, for reasons given by Johnleemk above. Pablo Stafforini (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep -- his notability is well-established, as noted by Johnleemk above. NCdave (talk) 09:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Anyone who reads Vox or the Washington Post will know who he is.


 * {|cellpadding=0 style="border-top: 1px solid #A3A3A3; border-bottom: 1px solid #A3A3A3; background-color: #FFFFFF" align=left width=auto


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Spartaz Humbug! 16:10, 22 May 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * }

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.