Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Englett


 * 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:59, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Matt Englett

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG. There a few reliable sources about him, but it seems he is like a passing mention in most of them. I couldn't find a single source discussing the subject in detail. The subject has written a book as well, but there seems to be no independent reviews about the book, and hence WP:AUTHOR would fail as well. Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment It seems the original author was blocked for abusing multiple accounts to vote at AfDs Sockpuppet_investigations/JellyfishFilms. Just mentioning for the record in case something similar happens here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete No extensive coverage in reliable sources. Blackmane (talk) 02:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as simply not currently convincing of the necessary notability. SwisterTwister   talk  22:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This looks and reads exactly like the kind of reformatted quasi-LinkedIn profile that self-promoters are continually pumping out because they think their mere existence automatically entitles them to have Wikipedia articles for public relations purposes. But as always, that's not what we're here for — and none of this suggests or sources any substantive reason why an encyclopedia article about him would be warranted at this time. The sources here are all either video clips of him speaking, or mere namechecks of his existence as a provider of soundbite, in references which do not have him as their subject — but a person has to be the subject of media coverage, not just a name floating around in coverage of other things, to pass WP:GNG. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Searches did not turn up in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:41, 28 April 2016 (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.