Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Tye (4th nomination)


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Matthew Tye
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This article has already been deleted twice, in part because the article was largely self-promotional. Although new sources have been added to the article the mentions of the subject are either incidental to the main topic, or the sources are not significant. Furthermore, the article goes into excessive detail about this Vloggers output and verges on being promotional. Shritwod (talk) 22:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Three sources that provide significant coverage about the subject are:  According to Reliable sources/Perennial sources, "Voice of America is an American state-owned international radio broadcaster. It is considered to be generally reliable, though some editors express concerns regarding its neutrality." From Reliable sources, "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective".    The subject has received significant international coverage in three countries: Denmark (Politiken), Taiwan (FTV News), and the United States (Voice of America). Numerous other sources provide less substantial coverage about the subject. The subject meets Notability (people) which says: People are presumed if they have received significant coverage in   that are,  of each other, and. The article was deleted in two AfDs: 17 May 2017 and 2 July 2018 (an 8 August 2009 AfD was about a different person). I supported deletion in both AfDs. A deletion review was closed as "decision endorsed" on 30 October 2021. I submitted a draft for review as the subject had become notable since the 2018 AfD. A 2022 deletion review was closed as "allow recreation" on 28 June 2022. The article complies with Neutral point of view and provides due weight about the subject's background and activities. I do not consider the article to be promotional. Cunard (talk) 23:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.


 * Pinging Articles for deletion/Matthew Tye (2nd nomination) participants:, , , , and . Pinging Articles for deletion/Matthew Tye (3rd nomination) participants: , , , and . Pinging Deletion review/Log/2021 October 15 participants and closer: , , , , , and . Pinging Deletion review/Log/2022 June 20 participants and closer: , , , , , and . Cunard (talk) 23:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Pinging two editors from Deletion review/Log/2021 October 15 whom I missed as their comments were in a collapsed box: and . Cunard (talk) 23:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * KEEP. I believe there are many operators for the CCP that keep flagging this and Serpentza articles for deletion. I wish that all those would be blocked 80.169.0.210 (talk) 10:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep per Cunard. There's no one who researches their votes more, and I'm especially convinced by the fact that he saw factors having changed and spent the time to read and research before creating the draft. I believe the sources he's included here add up to notability for Tye. Further, I think the fact that it was deleted twice is a red herring. This was not an out of process creation, the recent DRV explictly permitted it, although it didn't preclude an AfD. Not to say it's in bad faith, I just think raising it is going to lead !voters to the wrong conclusion. Star   Mississippi  01:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nothing more here than there was before. Just public relations fluff. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:37, 2 July 2022 (UTC).
 * Agreed, it feels very much like a puff piece rather than an encyclopaedia entry. Certainly the first two versions of the page were purely self-promotional, and although this is better it goes into way too detail and smacks of being a hagiography. Shritwod (talk) 21:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. I accepted the most recent draft because I was convinced by 's WP:THREE sources. "Promotional" is a reason for improving the article, not deletion; the "delete" arguments above do not explain how WP:GNG/WP:BASIC is not met by those specific sources. -- King of ♥<b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 02:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 *  Weak Keep - I agree with Cunard and King of Hearts that the test of general notability has been passed (and exceeded) by three sources. I respectfully disagree with Cunard as to whether the article is neutral.  It was written both to praise its subject and to describe him.  It should be tagged for reworking as to neutrality and tone.  I also agree with Star Mississippi.  The AFD nomination is being made in good faith, but is being made in good faith error.  If all of the fluff is removed from the article, there will still be a C-Class article.  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:14, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I wrote all of the text in the current version of the article. I did not write the article to "praise its subject". I wrote the article to "describe him" based on all the reliable sources that covered him. Editors who have raised Neutral point of view concerns have not pointed out which paragraphs, sentences, or phrases are non-neutral. I recommend that editors who consider the article to be non-neutral open a discussion on the article's talk page with specific examples of what is non-neutral and what can be improved. I am open to discussing on the article's talk page whether any content needs to be reworded or whether any content does not comply with Neutral point of view. Cunard (talk) 04:24, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The AfD nominator added a POV template to the article. I have responded at Talk:Matthew Tye. Cunard (talk) 21:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and China.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:GNG and WP:THREE. Demetrios1993 (talk) 19:37, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I don't think Voice of America should count for notability due to the US government bias, but the other two sources presented by Cunard are enough to meet WP:NBASIC. Jumpytoo Talk 05:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep (summoned by ping, !voted in older afds) agree with above points that it should be kept.Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊  01:20, 7 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.