Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Wingett


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Matthew Wingett

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  Cliff  Smith 18:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  Cliff  Smith 18:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Article originally came to my attention because it has clearly been written by the subject. The only claim of notability is his contributions to the writing of several episodes of a TV police soap (on which his brother plays a significant character). It is likely the cited TV Weekly article talks about the Wingetts, but one news article is not enough to prove notability. The Portsmouth News article only mentions a 'Mr Wingett' who is a local hypnotist. Wingett's books are self-published e-books and I can't find any reliable reviews. Therefore he doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. Sionk (talk) 09:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 
 * Delete: Not enough coverage to qualify for WP:GNG. He was a writer on one series, over ten years ago. Not a large show, either. Other than that, yes his books are via vanity press and thus don't meet WP:WRITER guidelines. This article has been around for years. Good catch! Jimsteele9999 (talk) 23:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Some coverage in the local paper doesn't meet notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:52, 8 August 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.