Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Sheffield


 * 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   redirect to Media Research Center. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 10:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Matthew Sheffield

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable blogger. Prod removed last year without comment. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete the conceivable notability is the connection with Mythbusters. But hat organizations own page says only "(From 2005 through 2013, Matt Sheffield provided leading editorial and technical services for NewsBusters." .  DGG ( talk ) 01:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Newsbusters. Subject has been mention in some reliable sources, but none that appear to give in-depth or significant coverage to the individual who is the subject of the article in question of this AfD. Most mentions have been the individuals connection to Newsbusters:
 * This reliable source gives in-depth coverage to one of Sheffield's works regarding the Dan Rather Killian documents controversy. But it is more about one thing the subject had worked on and not the subject in question. It is also given passing mention here:
 * Therefore, I am presently of the opinion that the article should be redirected to a notable work by him at this time.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This reliable source gives in-depth coverage to one of Sheffield's works regarding the Dan Rather Killian documents controversy. But it is more about one thing the subject had worked on and not the subject in question. It is also given passing mention here:
 * Therefore, I am presently of the opinion that the article should be redirected to a notable work by him at this time.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Therefore, I am presently of the opinion that the article should be redirected to a notable work by him at this time.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. I don't see sufficient evidence of notability in the article or web searches. Not sure it's even worth a redirect to Newsbusters, which is itself a redirect to a brief paragraph in another article. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 16:03, 16 February 2015 (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.