Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Hillier (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 both.  Kurykh  00:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

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

No indication of notability or verifiability, and apparent conflict of interest with the creator of this article (User:Mattishq) also working on other obviously related articles (Mark Hillier, adding a self-referential section to Ishq). It all rings of VSCA to me. Also nominating:

for basically the same reasons - lack of verifiability. Arguably they may pass WP:MUSIC, but there is not a single source cited or found for either. It should also be noted that other editors, User:Mike Indidginus and User:MichaelDidg have created or worked on several articles closely related to this "Ishq" group (Indidginus, Open System (music)). Again, this smacks of self-promotion, and between them these articles are bordering on being a walled garden. ~Matticus TC 14:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Additional. And I now note, having created the AfD using Twinkle, that this is not the first time the article has been AfDed, apparently by User:Matt Hillier which is a single-purpose account. I'm not sure what to make of this, really... ~Matticus TC 15:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Mike Indidginus 11:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete both. No reliable sources. I don't see how either could pass WP:MUSIC. Additionally, take a look at the Mark Hillier article. Halfway through, it refers to Mark as "Matt". Oops?--Sethacus 16:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Why is Matt entering the info about himself a problem? It's all factual info, & I'm sure there are ambient enthusiasts out there who would be interested in the page... The same thing can be said for my own page (Indidginus). What is the problem with the artist themself putting up the info? I could understand it if I told everyone to listen to my music or rubbished other peoples, but that isn't the case. What is the difference between this page (or my page) & say the page on Simon Posford or Ott? The information is factual on both pages & written in a similar fashion... Anyway, thanks for your input & hope to hear back from you. -- Mike Indidginus 17:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument for keeping an article. Just because your information is factual does not make you notable. Realkyhick 18:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. First of all, Wikipedia is not MySpace. Writing about yourself (outside your user page) is strongly discouraged. The nub of the problem, though, is verifiability. Unless the information can be verified by referring to independent reliable sources (e.g. music reviews, magazine/website articles, etc., NOT self-published sources like blogs) then who is to say it's true? Just saying "it's correct because I am this person" (or "I know this person") is not good enough. I could tell you my shoe size is 12 and my favourite food is curry, but can I prove it? WP:V is one of those immutable policies without which Wikipedia simply cannot function. ~Matticus TC 20:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete both per WP:COI and WP:NOR, and per nom. GreenJoe 18:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all. No reliable sources, fails WP:MUSIC big time. I'll likely nominate Indidginus for AfD, too. Realkyhick 19:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete both; I don't feel the artist meets WP:MUSIC at this time. If someone comes up with some good reliable sources to indicate otherwise, I'd be happy to change my mind. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for your thoughts. Please do as you see fit. Thanks again for the input. Michael.


 * 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.