Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Hiltzik


 * 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   keep. The consensus is weak here, but with the lack of anyone (apart from the nominator) arguing for deletion I can't see any other closure other than keep being possible here, with the article having already been relisted 3 times. Davewild (talk) 18:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Matthew Hiltzik

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Subject does not appear to be notable according to WP:BIO but has merely received glancing mentions in several sources due to typical work as a publicist. —Eustress talk 04:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe that Matthew Hiltzik is more than just a publicist. I looked at the references, and this is someone who got a full page profile in the Washington Post. There was also a NY1 profile on him, and both of these are listed in the references. After reading the profile, it seems that he is more than a publicist. AEAA (talk) 15:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's unclear to me why this particular article is tagged for possible deletion. Subject meets the WP:BIO criteria for notability, with multiple published third party stories in major media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.72.27 (talk • contribs)
 * 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) 00:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Please keep this page, as I do not see any sufficient reason to remove the page. This page follows structure and format, while referencing where needed. Matthew Hiltzik is also an executive producer, which is noted in the article. He has also worked on multiple award winning films. He does meet the criteria for notability as well. GD23 (talk) 14:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It has come to my awareness that the article may best fit under the description at WP:GNG, which would leave the article as is. GD23 (talk) 16:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please explain how GNG is appeased. We're not mind readers :) —Eustress talk 00:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There is sufficient national/international coverage, therefore it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. GD23 (talk) 16:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I've seen this guy's name associated with a number of national stories in the last 24 hours. i don't think this article is a good candidate for deletion. Legacy2012 (talk) 17:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC) — Legacy2012 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Like what? Please provide concrete examples and explain which criteria of WP:BIO this individual meets? —Eustress talk 18:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I hope none of the comments above can be attributed to sock puppets. I am trying to assume good faith, but for editors with little or no edit history to jump into an AfD discussion is highly suspect. —Eustress talk 18:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The Washington Post article is in depth enough to suggest notability, but a lot of it is name drops; unable to find any other in depth independent source to meet multiple. IMDb references and poorly formatted titles to try to influence search results are not encouraging. Dru of Id (talk) 01:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Week keep - I really hate to say it in light of the suspicious behavior above, but I think the fact that the guy is the focus of at least two nationally significant reliable sources (The Washington Post piece and the Variety article) that he may just squeak by the general notability guidelines. A lot of the other sources are crap/trivial and the article could use some major cleanup, but he does seem to legitimately have his hands in a lot of notable things in a notable way. DreamGuy (talk) 02:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see the NY1 One on One piece as well. That profile articulates the notability of the subject.(GD23 (talk) 18:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC))
 * No, it really doesn't. It's not indepth. We incidentally get the biographic details of: his mother's name, his hometown, his religion (which has affected his career), and his political party (which he's professional enough to perform to high standards regardless of whether it matches his clients') [plus the private detail of having children, which I only include in a bio if a) pictured in references and unavoidable b) separately covered or independently notable c) stated no longer minors]. The rest, again, is name dropping clients and unencyclopedia detail. Dru of Id (talk) 15:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as notability goes, after looking into the NY1 profiles, there are only 30 a year that is done on the whole New York City. Therefore, that seems to be quite an accomplishment to be made. GD23 (talk) 16:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A news agency focusing on the five burroughs doing a piece on someone from New York City is local coverage, whether they do 3 or 3000. If he were an out of state interview they did it might count for notability if it was a third source backing national coverage of The Washington Post; and Variety. Dru of Id (talk) 21:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 03:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep NY1 + Wash Post + Producer of Paperclips = keep.   Also, the mere fact that the same guy represented Hillary Clinton, Glenn Beck and Harvey Weinstein is in itself notable.   -- Vonfraginoff (talk) 09:17, 4 July 2012 (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.