Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Wootton


 * 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. Jayjg (talk) 02:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Matt Wootton

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This political candidate has not received significant coverage in secondary reliable sources. Of the two references, one doesn't mention him and the other is a brief mention only. The other sources are external links to websites, which do not help show notability. The subject has previously edited this article, which is probably why it reads like a press release. Fences &amp;  Windows  20:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  --  Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions.  --  Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. A failed candidate in local council elections. It's hard to find a clearer fail of WP:POLITICIAN than that. As per nom, sources are nowhere near getting past WP:GNG. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - minor functionary of a minor party. Bearian (talk) 00:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Mkativerata and Fences' points about political candidacy in local elections is legitimate if the subject were to be viewed solely as a political candidate. But clearly there are other aspects to the notability. It is incorrect to argue that sources are not valid WP:GNG - sources include the subject being featured as the major subject of an hour-long BBC4 TV documentary (BBC4 is a British channel that reaches nearly 2 million viewers per day (see http://www.barb.co.uk/report/weeklyViewing?_s=4)), the subject's film winning a competition and appearing on BBC Newsnight (the BBC's flagship current affairs programme with many millions of viewers). I would have thought that these instances of prolonged exposure to millions of people for different reasons at different times were sufficient to establish notability, even without seperate reporting at other dates in the national Guardian and Times newspapers of the UK. Specifically with reference to Wikipedia Policy: the sources of BBC4, BBC2 Newsnight, The Guardian and The Times constitute Significant Coverage, Reliable Coverage and are obviously Independent of the subject. The differing reasons for which this guy has been on national British TV also indicate that his notability is not a "flash in the pan" of one event. Furthermore, Bearian's dismissiveness of the subject as a "minor functionary of a minor party" is obviously not only narrow but highly contestable: the subject's post appears to clearly have been a major post in which he did something major and worthy of coverage in several national newspapers, and whether or not the Green Party is a minor party is a different debate that I don't think the four of us are really qualified to adjudicate and should not necessarily lead to the Green Party and Greens not being included on Wikipedia. This article has existed for 3 years and been edited by a good dozen people without challenge. It appears that the subject himself did edit it once, but on one day and 3 years ago, so it is unlikely to be mainly autobiographical. The article seems to me to be a useful contribution. It seems unnecessary and possibly highly contentious to delete it at this time. We should take off the tag and move on. 24.186.176.173 (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi there, I'm afraid the sources mentioned just don't cut it as "significant coverage in reliable sources":
 * Of the two Guardian articles, one doesn't mention him at all; the other is only an incidental mention buried in a long series of snippets.
 * The documentary seems to be about three different protesters to illustrate a protest movement in general. The document isn't about Matt Wootton. Many documentaries are made giving ordinary people as examples to illustrate a wider subject. That doesn't make the ordinary people notable. I can't see how this case is any different.
 * As for the film competition, I'm hesitant to say that producing a film that makes this list confers any notability. I can't find any coverage of the film making this list. Being a contestant (or even a winner) in a TV competition does not confer notability. This is no major film award.
 * Cheers--Mkativerata (talk) 20:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * hi Mkativerata. The points you make are interesting but I think incomplete, possibly because you do not previously know the person that we are talking about! I have met people from the Middle East who have never heard of Madonna or even Michael Jackson. That does not mean they are not notable. Wikipedia exists to bring new knowledge to other people, not to have knowledge deleted from it. The point you are missing about the Guardian and Times articles are that Matt Wootton created the Real Progress rebranding of the Green Party in the UK, as the Real Progress article also targeted by Fences describes. If he is not mentioned by name in every article about Real Progress that does not lower the notability on the thing he created. Also with the rebrand, I have seen this on TV and in literature when I was in the UK, that cannot be directly referenced by a URL. I think you would be making a mistake to assume that a few instances of referenced notability online actually equals no notability, rather than asking whether a few instances of referenced specific notability online might hint at greater notability in other mediums, including TV. This guy has also been interviewed on TV several times, especially on the TV News, that I wouldn't know how to reference. Deleting the whole article on him just because he's not got thousands of links about him on the internet (even though he has featured on TV which can't necessarily be referenced on the web) would just make Wikipedia a list of links of things that happen on the internet, not about the real world, where TV and things come and go, but still exist!
 * The documentary clearly IS about him; I know because I've watched it. It's about three different people, but that doesn't mean it's not about him (that's false logic: if Huey, Dewey, and Louie go to the park, that still means Louie went to the park....). If it was a documentary about 10 or 20 different people, you'd have a much better point, but since it's an hour long documentary that statistically means that 20 whole minutes of national TV was featuring him, just in that documentary. I hardly think that's insignificant. And that's just one instance of notability.
 * As for the film competition, searching the Australian google news archives seems a strange way to try to establish notability. If I search google.co.uk for newsnight "matt wootton" I get more results. Again, this was national TV. I don't see that it's the role of Wikipedia editors to take an existing article about someone who has obviously featured on TV and in newspapers that they haven't seen, and try to judge it through their eyes: you've obviously never heard of this guy, you don't care about him or probably care about any of his issues, but that doesn't mean that other people don't think he's worthy of note. I don't see why we need to have a long debate over this - if anything the entry could just do with tidying up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.176.173 (talk) 20:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Surely a coincidence, but the day before that IP made an edit to Barclays Center in January, Matt Wootton posted a note to Twitter about the Barclays Center. It is surely also a coincidence that according to Matt Wootton's Twitter he is in Brooklyn at the moment, and that IP geolocates to... Brooklyn. See WP:AUTO for how one should actually proceed with writing about oneself. Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Dear Fences: thanks for the conspiracy theory. I wasn't aware the conspiracy theory was a recommended method for editing Wikipedia. Since there are 2.5 million people in Brooklyn, your assumption is not exactly watertight. I live in New York and I met Matt Wootton at a political event near the Barclays Center site because he is on a speaking tour of the US see further independent source. In fact, this is yet another reason for notability, and probably should be included in the article. If you like I will contact Matt Wootton to inform him of your accusation Fences; otherwise I suggest that you are in danger of showing bias in this matter. I suggest that for everybody's blood pressure level that personal accusations have no place on Wikipedia and this discussion is quickly becoming tainted and unproductive. If we want to spend any more time on this article it should maybe be aimed at improving it rather than throwing around accusations about its subjects 24.186.176.173 (talk) 23:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I found his entry useful, i'd like if you could keep it. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.52.48 (talk) 20:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep To make it absolutely clear: I am the subject of the article, and I am writing from New York city. If I have say at all I would argue that deletion seems over the top. It is important that Greens and the Green Party are represented on Wikipedia and I would have thought that documenting personalities in the green movement was important. I understand however that I am not the person to further argue my case and I will accept whatever outcome transpires. I do hope the views of ordinary and unheard-from users will be taken into account, not just experieneced editors. It is surely better to have a resource than to delete it, especially when there seems to be contention over whether it meets strict criteria. With thanks, M Wootton Mattwootton1978 (talk) 21:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Hi again; I'd like to contribute something positive to this debate by offering to edit the article n improve it. I'll do this over the next day and make it simpler, take out some of the extra color and make the notability clearer. Hopefully then the article can stay and it'll be clearer why this is a valid entry. OK? Thank you.Verdeny (talk) 20:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note (addressed to the new accounts and IPs) This is not a vote like you get in elections. Numbers are not counted - valid arguments are. "I found it useful" is not a valid argument. Peridon (talk) 21:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note to Matt "It is important that Greens and the Green Party are represented on Wikipedia" - no, it is not. Not to those of us that edit and 'work' here. It probably is to you, but Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I feel there could be notability in the article, but masses of single purpose accounts appearing won't help. Those expressing views that add to the discussion will be taken into account. Those that merely say 'Keep - it's important' will not. Peridon (talk) 21:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Finished revamping the article - Hi again, OK, well I have worked on this and the material is now well-sourced, with (arguably) the most notable achievement (the Green Party rebrand) having at least 6 different references including the BBC, Guardian, Times, Wootton's website, and three articles from British marketing/advertising periodicals. The periodicals specifically mention him and quote him by name, which was a criticism before of the Guardian reference (although not of the Times). Wootton's role in the BBC4 documentary is now referenced by 3 different sources. His other documentary is referenced by the BBC website. Because of the breadth of sourcing that has met the editorial control criteria of multiple professional news/information sources, I now think that this does meet notability: his work (with his name/face attached to it) has obviously received attention from the world at large. I can only conclude that this constitutes Significant coverage (WP:GNG) from multiple sources that are Reliable (BBC, broadsheets) and Independent of the Subject. Looking at Wikipedia policy I would say there's enough for a "Presumption" of inclusion at the very least, certainly not a presumption of deletion. I've dealt earlier with an argument that it's not "flash in the pan". There doesn't appear to be any "original research" any more, and not in the bits that's I've contributed. Sure, this guy is not crazily well known, but clearly is in certain circles, and Wikipedia policy caters for that possibility. Although some might say this casts doubt on Notability (but then see effect of Rebrand and reporting by BBC, Times etc etc), I would argue it also puts him at the least within the category of People who are relatively unknown (WP:NPF). Maybe this article should still be shortened, but I don't really think it all should be deleted. I hope you'll agree it has sufficient notability from trusted secondary sources (BBC, broadsheet papers etc) to secure retention. Thanks guys.Verdeny (talk) 05:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Non notable party functionary for a short period. Fails WP:POLITICIAN by any measure and secondary coverage is very minimal. -  Gallo glass  10:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Can I also draw to the attention of contributors to this discussion the following Wikipedia policy WP:ILLEGIT regarding the use of multiple accounts. -  Gallo glass  11:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * References? Very little there that meets Wikipedia's requirements - if anything at all. Blogs and own-site links count for nothing. The Guardian article makes no mention of Wootton and doesn't even link the Green Party with the protest - which gets a one-liner mention anyway. The BBC reference does mention Wootton, but gives no indication that he's anything more than an activist - which is not an inherently notable position. (More space is given in the BBC release to the Clandestine Insurgent Rebel Clown Army, which I find quite understandable.) The Alex Cox site says "Alex Cox has been asked to direct the 2006 Green Party Election Broadcast for local government elections in England in April 2006.". Fair enough. It doesn't mention Wootton at all. To me, this is not a satisfactory set of references for Wooton. On an election flyer, it would look OK - and who would check them? Note that I am not yet stating that I find him non-notable. I feel there's more chance than most unelected candidates come up with - but chance and result aren't the same (as most lottery ticket buyers would agree...). BrandRepublic is about the neatest thing I can see here. Mad.co.uk (which at first I expected to be the UK edition of a favourite magazine of my younger days) won't let you in without registering or free trialling, neither of which I am in the habit of doing in the course of investigations. Peridon (talk) 14:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per the lack of reliable sources. The sources used in the article are mainly from the subject's website or Blogspot, neither of which are independent sources. This article fails Notability (people). Cunard (talk) 04:51, 17 March 2010 (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.