Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew P. Hutton


 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Matthew P. Hutton

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Appears to fail WP:GNG. Article was deproded by SPA anon IP, but still suffers from same lack of notability. Also appears to fail WP:AUTHOR. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Unsure why there is a question over the subjects Notability? As the subject is author of 3 books, and contributed to another 5 all in the field of Paranormal. Also the subject has been part of the editorial team on three separate publications and written for numerous others, including London Weekend Television. As Wiki is designed as an extensive encyclopaedia, and includes such entries as  George "Geordie" Ridley, who is virtually unknown outside of the Northeast of England, I have to question the motives for nominating this subject for deletion. a Google search reveals multiple references to Matthew P Hutton.  However, as he has been writing under the name Matthew Hutton, the name is linked to Matthew Hutton (Tax Advisor), Matthew Hutton (archbishop of York 1529), Matthew Hutton (archbishop of Canterbury 1747–1757), so maybe this is the reason for the confusion?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.73.234 (talk) 09:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC) — 82.152.73.234 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Since my last comment I see ConcernedVancouverite has added George "Geordie" Ridley for deletion, who I used as an example of other notable people who are not easily verifiable. This seems unfair - I could add hundreds of other examples of people and subject already on Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.73.234 (talk) 15:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC) — 82.152.73.234 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The subject has written numerous forewords to books which fulfill WP:AUTHOR paragraph 1 “The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors”. Spiritmover (talk) 12:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC) — Spiritmover (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * As one of the previous entries already claims, Wikipedia designed as an extensive encyclopaedia, the contents of which should be diverse and thorough.  One of the problems with ConcernedVancouverite argument is that it is not from an objective view. His nomination for the deletion of George "Geordie" Ridley illustrates this point perfectly.  Ridley wrote a song about the Blaydon Races and Cushie Butterfield both of these are legendary in the North of England, but virtually unheard of outside of the region. The music hall versions of the songs are well known in the region, but do not appear in a Google search?  Wiki gives these stories to a wider audience, such as researchers and historians looking in to regional folktales and legends, in very much the same ways as researchers in to paranormal investigators or ghost hunters will be interested in Hutton's life and work.   The word Geordie and Geordie dialect words or Hutton's hometown of Gateshead would not reach the type of notability required by ConcernedVancouverite yet they appear on Wiki.  Wikipedia rules are guidelines and people who choose to set themselves up as monitors should show a bit more discretion and commonsense. Hutton is unquestionable a leading researcher in the North of England, and his notability has reached across the UK.  I imagine that  Cushie Butterfield, Gateshead, Geordie and Geordie dialect words will now be nominated for deletion by the overly zealous “concerned Vancouver citizen” I only hope the Wiki Admin team are monitoring his activity.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hitomi Kurihara (talk • contribs) 10:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)  — Hitomi Kurihara (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment - Since my comment on this AfD was deleted by one of the above editors, I am reposting it, and would like to remind other editors it is inappropriate to delete another editor's comments on an AfD. An AfD is meant to discuss the merit of the underlying article, and deleting other editor's comments regarding such content is inappropriate.  Here is my original comment....Regarding the content of this AfD, the three books referenced in the article that are written by him turn up no reviews on Google Books.  (In fact, one of the ISBN numbers turns up an entirely different book, and one turns up a book that the article claims he co-authored, but only lists the other author).  Overall for an article to appear about an author, there has to be a certain amount of notability, and it seems he does not meet those standards as detailed in WP:AUTHOR. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 01:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment If one of the above editors had deleted your previous comment, then there would be a record of it (please check history). The article has three Links to Google Books, which verify that Hutton is indeed the author and co-author.  There is also a couple of reviews about the Hylton Castle Ghost book on Google Books?  I would imagine that as he has contribute forewords to other peoples works, and is a literary correspondent, then this is consistent with WP:AUTHOR  82.152.73.234 (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC) — 82.152.73.234 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment It was you who deleted it with this edit, so it is very unclear what you say, "If one of the above editors had deleted your previous comment....." I would like to remind you once again, it is inappropriate to delete another editor's comments on an AfD, and doubly wrong to then make comments as if it didn't happen. There are two books by this author on google books:  , and one of them is listed on Amazon "The Further Words of Wisdom" without him listed as a co-author , so the google book addition of his name as a co-author is not even clear.  Neither has any non-social media reviews that I can find.  Regarding the merit of the notability of the article, being an author of a book that is non-notable does not make the author notable.  ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * CommentI was going to join this discussion but the above user ConcernedVancouverite seems to have a hidden agenda. So I'll pass77.103.114.137 (talk) 18:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC) — 77.103.114.137 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete No in-depth coverage of subject by independent and objective reliable sources to justify a stand alone article. Appears to be an author whose work has received little to no notice. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - No coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. Being the author of books by itself is not an indication of notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails Wikipedia's notability requirements and specifically fails WP:AUTHOR. I could find absolutely nothing about him at Google News, and nothing but self-referential things at Google and Google Books. The article itself contains no significant external sourcing. --MelanieN (talk) 04:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Closing administrator: I note that Wikipedia already has articles on Matthew Hutton (Archbishop of York) and Matthew Hutton (Archbishop of Canterbury); the two of them and this one are listed at the disambiguation page Matthew Hutton. The other two are already DABed from each other by hatnotes, so if this one is deleted, the DAB page becomes unnecessary and you might want to consider deleting it as well.
 * Another note to closing administrator: there is a page Matthew Hutton (ghost hunter) which redirects to this page. If the result here is delete, the redirect page should also be deleted. --MelanieN (talk) 13:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And yet another redirect page at Matthew P Hutton (without the period). --MelanieN (talk) 13:57, 16 May 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.