Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E. Matthew Buckley (2nd nomination)


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

E. Matthew Buckley
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Relisting per Deletion review/Log/2010 August 7. I abstain. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article went from this to its current form. When all the spam gets removed, it's easier to evaluate. Now can see that claims of notability are weak and sourcing even weaker. Fails all people-specific guidelines (WP:SOLDIER, WP:ENT, WP:AUTHOR), the GNG and V. Erase once and for all. Christopher Connor (talk) 06:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. While the subject has engaged in various occupations including military pilot, actor, and businessman, it's not clear whether he has attained significant amounts of coverage in reliable sources for these achievements. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just delete it as unremarkable The refs just don't hold up at all and the AfD discussion was marred by two SPA accounts. Looking at the contribs of editors involved in some of the articles around this guy reveals a whole bunch of self-promotional advertisements masquerading as articles. Tactics like including himself in the credits of an afterschool special as a major part, when IMDB puts him "below the fold" of the credits list makes it obvious what the intent here is: to fluff up a guy who makes a living as a motivational speaker.  None of this stuff, companies or the people involved is anything out of the ordinary and they meet our speedy delete criteria for bios and companies. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Delete Subject has achieved non-notability in three separate fields - military service, acting, and as an executive at a non-notable firm - which does not add up to notability. The sole remaining claim to notability is as a "regular contributor" to a well-known financial e-zine. However, when examined, his writing samples lack the consistency and quality one would ordinarily expect from a notable columnist and indicate an informality in his relationship with TheStreet.com. Finally, the two main contributors to the article both have conflict of interest issues and the possibility that the page was created as paid advertising for Mr. Buckley's consultancy cannot be ignored. Ronnotel (talk) 11:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - google news and google books fail to show notablity for this person and bit parts in two movies and a TV series do not meet GNG. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't like the fact that this article was stripped out of content about a week ago before being run up here for deletion. Old version. Now, is this article in either full or shortened form more than self-promotional hooey? I leave that to you. Carrite (talk) 15:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment  - Carrite raises a valid point. The old version is substantially different. Also, Google News yields 8 hits. —  C M B J   21:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - I am the author of the article. I understand the reasons why Ronnotel stripped out all the content (for lack of references). I think it would be better off on another site. Thanks Christieag (talk) 13:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment to closer As Carrite pointed out, the prior version of this article was significantly different and I definitely do not support the changes made by Ronnotel as trimming of "spam" or lessening undue weight, as the article did not read like a promotion to me whatsoever. And the references and EL's removed included news articles on the subject. Silver  seren C 19:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As was pointed out on the DRV page, I am somewhat familiar with the option trading industry so I feel like I'm in a good position to judge the claims being made on the original bio page. My intent was to remove material that was non-notable or couldn't be supported by the sources that were cited. Mr. Buckley's military career, while laudable, is entirely non-notable per WP:SOLDIER, as was the section that dealt with his employment at "PEAK6 Media", a non-notable company. The only exception being his filing an employment lawsuit. His acting career, such as it is, was boiled down to a summary as per WP:UNDUE but also fails to stand on it's own as truly notable. I've discussed my thoughts on his career as a financial commentator above. If you have issues with any material that was removed by all means feel free to revert me. However, as pointed out above, I believe the source material was greatly over-stated in order to produce was seemed to be a COI bio page. Ronnotel (talk) 20:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: sure as heck fails WP:MILPEOPLE, even in the previous iteration. As to the other careers, they seem to be mostly puffery and self-promotional, but I'm not well versed in the notability of businessmen and actors. And in its current state, the article is just abysmal in terms of content and referencing.  bahamut0013  words deeds 22:46, 16 August 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.