Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Conable


 * 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 Move and rewrite to William Henry (company). Not much feedback after 's proposal, but no dissent either and it's a viable AtD. I don't see a 3rd relist being helpful in changing the outcome. Star  Mississippi  03:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Matt Conable

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Topic does not appear to pass Wikipedia's notability standards and I did not find any other evidence to support the contrary. Source 1 is a trivial mention about topic's company, William Henry. Does not discuss the topic himself. Source 2 and Source 3 does not exist. Source 4 is a trivial mention about topic's company halfway down the page. Source 5 does not exist. Source 6 does not exist, and was linking from the topic's own website. Source 7 does not exist. Source 8 is just about topic's company, William Henry. Source 9 is actually a decent source, however, it's from PitchEngine which is $14.95 a month to publish your own stories. Moving on. Source 10 is from the topic's own website. Source 11 is a product award given to the topic's company, not him personally. Source 12, 13 and 14 are awards given to the topic's company. None of the sources are SIGCOV about him, as the main topic. There's a couple mentions of him in some blogs and rag newspapers, but none constitute RS for Wikipedia inclusion. I don't believe this topic is notable enough to establish an entry here. Megtetg34 (talk) 00:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't see any evidence of notability, and have failed to find any. Most of the article isn't even about the subject, it's about the brand he created. Maproom (talk) 07:33, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Move and rewrite to William Henry (company). There's probably enough here to establish notability of the company, there are just enough reliable sources about the company already in the article, plus a few others I found doing a WP:BEFORE search, here's a review in a Jacksonville, FL magazine, Here is a writeup of the company from The Oregonian, Here's an article from Forbes, Here's one from the New York Times.  I think there is enough here to establish notability for the Company, and having a short paragraph on the founder in the article on the company seems reasonable.  The founder themselves doesn't seem notable outside of the company, so there really only should be an article about the company.  -- Jayron 32 13:35, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I think that's fair. The New York Times article you mention is Source 1 in my AFD. It's a trivial mention of the company. The Jacksonville Review isn't notable media. However, the Forbes article counts. So there is at least 1 source. The other source of consideration I found is the Blade Magazine sources. The awards mentioned in Source 12 and 13 just state "Investor/Collector Knife Of The Year®: William Henry Studio ST-4010" for example. The coverage isn't SIGCOV, however there is an article here in Blade Magazine and so that should get the company 2 sources. And the Oregonian article you cited should count as a third. But for the founder himself, I haven't found enough to constitute his own Wikipedia page. Megtetg34 (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:49, 26 May 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Itcouldbepossible Talk 15:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Noting that the Forbes one is WP:FORBESCON. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Did not see that - Excellent call out Gråbergs Gråa Sång. Megtetg34 (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.