Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Wood


 * 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--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 11:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Matt Wood

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Poorly written & referenced article by SPA/COI editor.
 * Issues with notability:
 * first 2 references refer to arcane work as a post-grad/doctoral student. Quite common for a student at this level to have papers published, does not confer notability in isolation.
 * 3rd reference won't load for me, likely a deadlink
 * 4th reference is a general one about their team, does not refer to the individual
 * there does not seem to be anything of note on a google search. no independent articles or mentions in top publications. a couple of keynote videos. to me, seems to fall short of WP:GNG and seems to just be a vanity page that has :slipped under the radar for its 4 years of existence Rayman60 (talk) 22:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete No reason to think there is any notability.  DGG ( talk ) 23:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as clearly none of this actually suggests any solid independent notability, nothing convincing to actually keep. SwisterTwister   talk  05:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  05:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  05:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  05:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  05:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - Currently no reliable sources, and low article quality. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. All the above seem to be spot on. Agricola44 (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC).
 * Delete. Sources are either by him or don't mention him, and the major claims of the article have no reliable sourcing. I didn't see any highly cited publications in Google scholar. No evidence of passing WP:PROF or WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 12:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete CV and Puffery. May be notable in the future but not yet. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:53, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per the obvious reasons, CV, Puffery etc. – Davey 2010 Talk 23:12, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia is not a resume. This reads like one with nothing to establish notability. Bilbo Baggins (talk) 08:51, 20 April 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.