Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Whitton


 * 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   redirect to Bigfoot.   Wifione    .......  Leave a message  04:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Matt Whitton

 * – ( View AfD View log )

In my opinion, this is a perfect example of WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. This person is known for one event only: being part of a bigfoot hoax in 2008. While the hoax garnered national attention and possibly deserves an article unto itself, I don't believe this person is notable is his own right, as he is not known for anything other than the hoax. I should note that a merge tag has been on the article since its creation in 2008, but I couldn't find any discussion of it in the talk page archives, and anyway I don't think merging to the Bigfoot article is an option. One hoaxer is just not notable in the grand scheme of the bigfoot legend. SheepNotGoats (talk) 13:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment We could rename this article and edit it into an article about the hoax which would give us a place to redirect the current name to. Is the hoax significant enough to keep if we did? RJFJR (talk) 17:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Frankly I don't know. For a 2-3 week period in 2008, the event received a HUGE amount of news coverage, but it does not appear to have gotten any significant coverage since then (news coverage pretty much dropped off immediately after it was discovered to be a hoax), making me think it doesn't have any lasting notability. But I tend to lean to the deletionist side of things, so take my opinion with a grain of salt :) It's also worth noting that the hoax is mentioned in some detail in the Tom Biscardi article, because he basically was the mastermind behind it, and he is known for perpetuating bigfoot hoaxes in the past. Would redirecting Whitton to Biscardi's article be an option? SheepNotGoats (talk) 18:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Bigfoot, where he's already mentioned. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename, yes it is a hoax that should be having its own article in my opinion.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Bigfoot Stuartyeates (talk) 07:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)




 * Redirect Agree with the OP. He had a burst of news in 2008 but is otherwise low-profile. There is not extended coverage of him in any books or a documentary that I have found. MadCow257 (talk) 02:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect / merge per above. North8000 (talk) 17:27, 16 August 2011 (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.