Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew McKenzie


 * 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   no consensus.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 02:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Matthew McKenzie

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Not notable, self-promotion, repeatedly created, deleted from userspace (MfD), at one point salted, now pops up again. I would like this to go through AfD, so that it can be deleted as a re-creation in the future. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 15:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep but Gut- The links here seem to indicate that he has received enough significant 3rd party coverage to justify inclusion in Wikipedia. However, I recommending gutting the article of every bit of praise and adulation that lacks an inline citation.  And here's my editorial: By creating an article praising himself, User:Matthew McKenzie has not only violated WP:COI, he's made himself look like a real tool that no one should want to hire or associate with. --Griseum (talk) 17:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - the links provided on his own website (see above) demonstrate that he's received enough coverage from independent sources to pass the notability requirement. The article may be a conflict of interest, and may need cleanup, but neither of those are reasons to delete it. Robofish (talk) 14:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Delete per nom. Lionel (talk) 05:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep - Public figure. Carrite (talk) 04:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:BIO & WP:N] and reads very self-promotional. Likeminas (talk) 15:15, 23 July 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.