Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Purcell (businessman) (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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. ✗ plicit  14:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Matt Purcell (businessman)
AfDs for this article:


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

Last AfD was no consensus. Created by a single purpose editor. An orphan article. I don't see his achievements adding to notability. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BIO. Article claims he's a musician but I don't see evidence of that. LibStar (talk) 00:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC) Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  02:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, South Korea,  and Australia. LibStar (talk) 00:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Businesspeople.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  04:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete agree, low significance and self promotional. 6 of 11 refereces are behind paywall for Newcastle Hearld, so most will not be able to view them. Oddly, they are archived, but still blocked by paywall. Teraplane (talk) 01:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete. Doesn’t appear to be notable. Long Dong Johnsonn (talk) 03:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete promotional puff piece article with nothing much in terms of reliable sourcing outside the local paper. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete BEFORE search turns up few reliable sources apart from the local paper, which as other editors have noted, we cannot see without a subscription. Here's one not included, but I don't know whether Business News Australia is truly independent. Of existing sources, the two ProQuest links don't even show whether the articles refer to Purcell. All of the Herald links save this one appear to be Q&A-style interviews and thus not RS. The Radio National and AdNews sources are likewise Q&A-style interviews and thus not RS. In sum, I don't think there is enough independent, secondary, reliable, significant coverage to pass GNG or BIO thresholds. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:54, 23 April 2024 (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.