Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Bielby (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   no consensus. There is no consensus visible to delete anything based on the discussion below. There is however a clear indication that Blackfish and Bielby should be merged, though not specifically which article should be the main article, and which should be merged in, and either looks possible. There are very few opinions below on Death Ray, so either a seperate merge discussion or a separate deletion discussion for that article seems prudent Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Matt Bielby
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

also nominating: Walled garden of VSCA created by an obvious COI and WP:SPA. Can't make out how notable the subjects are, but the sources for the bio don't hold up under scrutiny - all seem to be dead. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 13:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2011 December 12.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  17:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete All. Same individual created all the relevant accounts - looks like personal publicity/vanity project.  Not seeing a whole load of notability asserted or supported by 3rd party sources.  We are basically left with a 46 year old guy who formed his own minor publishing company. --Legis (talk - contribs) 01:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep (but would settle for Merge with Future Publishing or Your Sinclair). Matt Bielby was well known as a contributor to various computer magazines in the 80s and 90s (eg: C+VG, Your Sinclair - also was the editor for at least one of these), and would be well remembered by those who grew up using these systems at that time. He's done a bit more in the public eye than just form a publishing company.--Ritchie333 (talk) 10:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete all Unfortunately, being "well remembered" doesn't count. He needs to have been written about.  And he hasn't, except by himself. No significant coverage for topics of the other articles either. EEng (talk) 04:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Response You've taken that small quote out of context. I specifically said he would be well remembered for being an editor and journalist at several notable magazines. EMAP and Future Publishing decided they were prepared to publish his name and likeness every month to tens of thousands of people. You could argue that notability is not inherited, but in that instance I'd prefer a redirect to a straight delete.
 * Just to clarify, I think the article definitely has problems. It was written with a conflict of interest and hence without a neutral point of view, and the sources are crap. (In a funky skillo sort of way). But that doesn't automatically imply deletion. Have you also reached your conclusion to delete based on looking at the two magazine archives I have linked later in the discussion? -- Ritchie333  (talk)  09:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 01:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

 
 * Delete all. It's worth noting that the creator of these articles, Arsecakes, identified himself as the copyright holder of this  self-taken photo of Matt Bielby (look at the reflection in the sunglasses).  Also, he commented in Talk:Matt Bielby about what it is like to have an article about you selected for deletion, an odd thing to comment about if he, Arsecakes, had merely made an article about someone else rather than himself.  To be fair, he probably didn't know the rules here since he'd not posted here before.  Kaid100 (talk) 19:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 15:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete all as Vanispamcruftisement. I don't feel the sources (for any of them) are up to scratch, and my spidey-senses say 'tendentious creation' Pol430  talk to me 21:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Switched to merge into Blackfish Publishing per RadioFan's rationale. The company's notability seems to be there but the notability of the other articles remains questionable. Pol430  talk to me 13:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - The current sources are no good as they're all just put together on personal sites. But I think a scan of the original magazines published by Future Publishing, which were commercially published and sold in UK Newsagents reaching a circulation of tens of thousands would pass. We just need ones that clearly show Matt Bielby as the editor, and preferably also containing the magazine's circulation figures and publication credits. They were online years ago, but they may have been pulled due to a copyright violation with Future. So - my question to the deletionists is - how do you prove something is a reliable source if it's been out of print for 20 - 25 years and putting it online is against copyright? -- Ritchie333   (talk)  22:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have found online scans of Your Sinclair and C+VG. Buried in this lot will be the information I'm looking for. Could some kind soul whose internet connection is not as flaky as mine go through and have a look? I've tagged the page as rescue for this reason. -- Ritchie333   (talk)  22:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 03:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Bielby The publications Bielby has edited are all of the reasonably important journals in their fields. Merge the Blackfish article in, with a redirect, redirect for Death Ray. (In principle we could keep the blackfish article, and include the other two, but I really do not like the practice of included executive bios in company articles--it's too tempting to spammers.  ).  DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSA: Notability isn't inherited. Even if the journals are "reasonably important in their fields", it doesn't imply that the editors of those journals are notable themselves.   Kaid100 (talk) 10:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I have added this as an additional source. Not sure of the reliability of the University of Minnesota Press - never heard of them before now. Can somebody follow this up? -- Ritchie333  (talk)  11:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've done some cleanup on the page. The old references have all gone, and I have added alternative ones from a book search that appear to pass muster. The bio of everything he did pre-EMAP is totally unsourced and violates WP:BLP, although it's probably correct given it appears to be self-written (but suppose he lied?) so this will need further cleanup later if and when the consensus is to keep. -- Ritchie333  (talk)  16:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The editor of a magazine is notable, since its listed in the infobox of magazine articles. They control all the content and make the magazine what it is.  He has worked in that position on many notable magazines.  References also exist like this one  which talks about him, Death Ray magazine.  He is notable, his magazines are notable, and his company that publishes a notable magazine is notable.  "Bielby, who was group senior editor at Future, has 10 successful launches under his belt, including Total Film, PC Gamer and Official PlayStation 2. Each magazine, with the exception of Total Film, hit the top spot in its respective market."   D r e a m Focus  08:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge all to Blackfish Publishing which does appear to have sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG and WP:V. The biography and magazine articles are vain spammy messes that should be selectively merged into the publishing company's article.  1 article is sufficient to cover this, 3 are not warranted. RadioFan (talk) 13:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, I see reliable sources and multiple non-trivial coverage.LuciferWildCat (talk) 18:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep All – Each of these articles have been covered in reliable sources. After retaining the articles, then a  merge  of all to Blackfish Publishing would seem logical. However, due to the lengthy and varied opinions in this AfD discusion, the best place to propose and discuss these merges is via discussion on the respective article talk pages, rather than in this AfD discussion. See WP:MERGEPROP for information about proposing article merges. These articles are meeting/passing WP:GNG, per:
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 12:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 12:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 12:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 12:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep all While I agree with Kaid100's assessment that the articles themselves were all in fact created by Matt Bielby himself, that doesn't negate the fact that his company and magazines are quite notable. I also applaud Ritchie333 and Northamerica1000 in their efforts to to improve these articles during this discussion.  Stubbleboy</b> 16:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Shouldn't this be closed soon? The last relist was ten days ago, and the AfD discussion has been ongoing for more than a month. -- Ritchie333  (talk)  12:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. It's because there are currently so many open AfDs. <b style="color:red">Stubble</b><b style="color:gray">boy</b> 14:34, 16 January 2012 (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.