Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Peacock


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 22:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Matt Peacock

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I tried to speedy this since all of these entries are red-linked but was reverted per WP:DABMENTION citing "valid dab page entries."

Because it's notability is questionable for some, I reduced it to two entries since the trainer may be notable and the character is based on a real person (the journalist) as indicated by this source, which reduce the entry to just two and the other will never be notable (WP:NOTINHERITED) other than being married to a Z-list celebrity. But again, this got reverted citing the same reasons, so rather than engaging in potentially an edit war, I thought it's best if this is left with others but then neither the Matt nor Matthew Peacock namespace has an article. Donnie Park (talk) 13:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: all valid dab page entry (and rather than just "being married to a Z-list celebrity", that one married her as the culmination of a tv reality show, making him worth at least a dab page entry). Pam  D  14:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I've now removed the "(Devil's Dust)" entry as it was an unnecessary link to a portrayal of the real person at "(journalist)", as pointed out above and below. Agree with 's proposal to put the journalist as Primary Topic and move this dab page. Pam  D  16:28, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * And have nominated the Matt Peacock (Devil's Dust) redirect for deletion at WP:RfD as it's unnecessary. Pam  D  16:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. MOS:DABRL also applies. This is probably a WP:SPEEDYKEEP against criterion 1 given you don't appear to actually want the page deleted at this point, just edited down (?). The Devil's Dust line should be deleted since it's just a fictionalised/dramatised version of the real person (I've added a bit of crosslinking to the DD and KC articles). ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 14:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ...and Move per bd2412's proposal below. (... and there I was just suggesting that "it may never warrant an article of its own"!). ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 01:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions.  Vipinhari  &#124;&#124;  talk  15:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep, but move. I have researched the four "Matt Peacock" candidates and have concluded that the journalist is the primary topic of the group. The journalist, Matt Peacock, is a forty-year veteran of ABC News, as well as being the author of the lauded expose on asbestos in building materials, Killer Company. As noted above, the "Matt Peacock" in Devil's Dust is actually the same person (as portrayed by an actor) - Devil's Dust is a film version of Killer Company. As far as I know, we do not generally do not disambiguate real people from fictional portrayals of themselves (for example, Albert Einstein (disambiguation) contains no entry for Albert Einstein played by Walter Matthau in I.Q.). The horse trainer might be moderately notable in his field, but so far as I can find, is rarely referred to as anything but "Matthew". The reality show person is of no more than footnote notability. I have initiated a draft on the clearly notable journalist at Draft:Matt Peacock (journalist), and would propose moving the disambiguation page to Matt Peacock (disambiguation), and moving the draft to Matt Peacock. bd2412  T 15:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support and close I am happy with proposal. Donnie Park (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * One more thing, regarding reality TV MP, wouldn't his notability be a WP:BLP1E considering his only real form of notability had been just that show, plus as a model he is not Tyson Beckford/David Gandy notable. That was why I originally wanted to remove that entry, which leaves just two entries. Whilst I don't mind the proposed rationale, that would had made the disambiguation page redundent. Donnie Park (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep and move. I concur with BD2412. Red links are fine in a disambiguation page (to encourage writing the articles), and if an article is written on the journalist Matt Peacock, then we have a primary topic. clpo13(talk) 16:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Nominator has not understood the difference between an article and a disambiguation page. 3 valid entries. Boleyn (talk) 18:12, 16 March 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.