Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E. Matthew Buckley


 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

E. Matthew Buckley

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

American businessman and fighter pilot. Quite a big article but the refs are spammy and sometimes don't mention him. None of them constitute substantial coverage from reliable sources. Article reads like advert. SPA creator. The fact that the article contains so much detail that no one can verify makes me believe there is a WP:COI issue. Contested prod. Christopher Connor (talk) 03:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 8 out of the 12 refs not only mention him directly but have direct quotes from the subject. Each section has enough information for me to verify. Seeing this page and the refs compared to the ones on list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions shows how well sourced this page is. It could be a tad less spammy though, I agree. GammaScalper (talk) 05:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I think deletion is an extreme suggestion. E. Matthew Buckley has acting credits verified by IMDb that exceed those of some other actors with Wikipedia articles. I'm pretty new to the community, but your initial comments pertained to the subject not being notable enough (and verified by a third party) to merit an article. There seem to be many biographies of lesser documented people on Wikipedia who remain unchallenged; could there be a way to improve this to your standards without deletion? I saw this banner on a short, spammy article:. Can't you just recommend improvements? The subject is also a decorated fighter pilot. Christieag (talk) 19:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm working on revisions that will improve the tone of the article Christieag (talk) 15:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Is your comment a "keep" or just a "comment"? Would be grateful if you could clarify. Christopher Connor (talk) 01:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak keep There seems to be a lot of sources, but the tone of the article needs radical reworking. I'm not sure how much would remain if someone unfamiliar with the topic took a crack at it to try and clean it up. Christieag - you might want to read WP:ADVERT as a starting point if you haven't already. And if you're having trouble understanding what people don't like about the article, maybe someone at WP:Adopt-a-User could help. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 23:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't think there is another person on this planet that is a decorated fighter pilot who was also an actor and Wall Street CEO. This is a truly unique individual. He's also an author. He's one of the most popular columnists on thestreet.com, Jim Cramer's site. I've seen many other bios and pages with much less sourcing and not as notable. IMO this page clearly exceeds the notability criteria and is not excluded by WP:NOT. GammaScalper (talk) 02:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's just the notability that is the problem, but rather the tone. The article might well pass WP:RS and get deleted under WP:ADVERT. If someone could start cleaning it up this whole deletion discussion would be unnecessary. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 02:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with that. The tone should be slightly altered and it will be acceptable in my opinion. There are other glaring examples of poor tone that we could discuss with less notability. GammaScalper (talk) 04:17, 23 July (UTC)


 * Thank you for the feedback. I'll check out WP:ADVERT and rework the tone. Christieag (talk) 02:37, 23 July 2010 (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.