Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Peterson


 * 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. (non-admin closure) st170e talk 00:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Matthew Peterson

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Bio of an investor with no indication of notability. Current citations are either brief mentions of him (e.g. The Street) or by him (e.g. latticework.com). The Post Gazette is a nice piece, but it isn't as much about him, as about the lawsuit.  Onel 5969  TT me 16:26, 23 November 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  → Call me  Razr   Nation  09:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete as entirely trivial and unconvincing and WP:NOT applies since it's enough here to suggest an encyclopedia was not conceived here, instead a PR piece. SwisterTwister   talk  05:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak Keep The listed sources and sources available from searches are either WP:ROUTINE (e.g., the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article) or not WP:RS with one possibly significant exception: the claim to be "featured" in the book "100 Baggers: Stocks That Return 100-to-1 and How To Find Them". Without current access to that book, I cannot verify that this would be coverage that passes WP:GNG.  Taking the claim at face value, however, would suggest that it does.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 12:51, 20 December 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.