Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Scott


 * 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. Flowerparty ☀ 00:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Matt Scott

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Borderline speedy/website advert spam, but since he is mentioned on an ESPN site I thought I'd AfD it instead. Passportguy (talk) 18:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete None of its refs seem to even mention Matt Scott. Bonewah (talk) 18:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

He is cited right here. link title —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twhit999 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hes mentioned in passing (“I’ll be back,” he told Matt Scott of TheShiver.com.) in a blog, so what? Bonewah (talk) 19:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You questioned it, I found it. It certainly doesn't take Rocket Science here. ESPN credits the site for scopps, when looking at the article where the scoop is, he wrote it. I am failing to see your disconnect here. Or simply put, logic. He is published on an ESPN affiliate site and did radio. I'll see if I can find more. That blog, by the way, is zagsblog, who is a huge media person in the New York area. It's not just Bob's blog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twhit999 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

another


 * Now read notability of people

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]


 * If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.[6]
 * Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.


 * Finding an article that this guy wrote does not establish notability. Bonewah (talk) 19:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe not, according to how you read that, but that's not what you intially addressed. You talked about the reference links provided, which are clearly citing the site he writes for and the articles he wrote. He has been used as a source by others, which was again provided. You don't even know what you're looking for here. It's obvious, because you just come up with more after your previous concerns were provided. How is being Published on an ESPN affiliate site, being on a huge radio station, with his own show, and being used as a source not enough for you? Again, I fail to see the disconnect. Someone needs to be written about to be notable? Really? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twhit999 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, someone has to be written about to be notable. Really. Bonewah (talk) 21:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Even after a roast dinner, I find a distinct taste of spam in my mouth. I have little idea what ESPN is, but a mention by them of an affiliate is not an indicator of notability. An article FROM TheShiver is in the self-referential area. The ' More from ESPN' link doesn't appear to mention Matt Scott, but seems to be about Ray McCallum, whoever he is. (OK, it probably told me but I was looking for Matt Scott.) Peridon (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Even if ESPN blog is notable, that does not make its owner notable. Fails WP:BIO. There is no assertion of notability. Johnuniq (talk) 03:39, 9 June 2009 (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.