Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Donegan


 * 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.  Majorly  (o rly?) 13:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Matt Donegan

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

One of many people to lose their job over offensive personal blog postings. Does it suck? Yes. Is this particular case notable? Not really. Richfife 03:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - Did a search and he seems at least a bit notable-- SU IT  04:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and add more references --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Recentism that isn't truely WP:Notable. /Blaxthos 05:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Does being the subject of a news story mean notability? I don't believe so. Googling "Matt Donegan" + "Dover Post" + fired = 277 results, and most of them are blogs (not surprisingly). Croxley 06:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. More references are needed. StaticElectric 07:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable person fired for blogging, only real claim to fame was appearning on the local news (which is not notable). TJ Spyke 08:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete is ths realy the srt of thing for bein on here? not notable enough--Zedco 10:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as breathless overdramatization of local minutiae. All eyes are watching to see what happens in the final analysis! -- Dhartung | Talk 11:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom and Blaxthos. -- P199 16:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Many employers in the United States can fire somebody for any reason - including no reason.  If this person has, in a legal action, been the subject of a case that set a precedent for blog posts in conjunction with employment, we'd have something.  But not this.  --Dennisthe2 01:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as it does not assert notablity per WP:BIO--Roswell native 03:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable enough. Article is primarily the work of single-use accounts to push POV after the firing.  Should have been caught and deleted a year ago.  --Seattle Skier (talk) 23:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The NBC 10 article is the only active, reliable, non-trivial link.  I think a standard of "precedent-setting legislation" is unreasonably high, but this article does not even meet the common/general/primary requirement of at least 2 independent, reliable, non-trivial sources.  -- Black Falcon 06:35, 27 March 2007 (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.