Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matty Healy (2nd 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Matty Healy
AfDs for this article:


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

Nominating for a redirect again. I still don't see significant notability here outside the band. Karst (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:46, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * A request in advance: If you join this deletion discussion, please provide policy- or guideline-based arguments. The article had to be fully protected to deal with today's disruption; comments that lack any indication of understanding Wikipedia's concept of notability may be removed and/or lead to page protection of this discussion page as well. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Even after leaving out actions of the band, there is still more than enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. I would also note that this is one of the funniest things I have ever read.-- Laun chba ller 22:46, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Looks like enough with SIGCOV for standalone article. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Endorsing the rationale of Spiderone.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep because of all the in-depth coverage in the media. Binksternet (talk) 23:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Specifically pointing to in-depth coverage in The Guardian, The Independent and the BBC. Across the pond, The New Yorker magazine ran a piece about Healy, describing his life and career. He definitely meets WP:GNG, no doubt about it. Binksternet (talk) 16:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. I also believe it's not necessary for him to have an individual page and I consider its current content very biased. In my opinion it does not have a NPOV or V. Meetmeinthedaylight (talk) 01:40, 26 April 2023 (UTC) — Meetmeinthedaylight (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * POV and bias issues can be solved through editing and does not require deleting the whole article. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * We'd need a whole new page cause none of what is currently on there works. So, I'd still say delete. Meetmeinthedaylight (talk) 16:20, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP Cakelot1 (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. According to Wikipedia's guidelines, "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." Based on this criterion, it's clear that this article should be deleted, since the rampant use of unreliable and low-quality sources (tabloids) demonstrates that there aren't enough reliable sources to back up most of this article. Which means, according to Wikipedia's policies, that there's not enough notability for him to have an article of his own.Ilovesadgirlmusic (talk) 02:24, 26 April 2023 (UTC) — Iloveadgirlmusic (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * @Ilovesadgirlmusic, are you seriously trying to imply that, NME, The Times, Digital Spy, The Independent, Kent Live, The Argus, Pitchfork, The Guardian, Out.com, The National Paper, Belfast Live, Billboard, BBC News, Variety, GQ, Vulture, Los Angeles Times, NPR, The New Zealand Herald, are all . I'd love you to find me the WP:RSN discussions where all those where deprecated. WP:RSP might help you understand the sort of sources we do and don't consider reliable for the case of wikipedia articles. Cakelot1 (talk) 06:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There ARE many tabloids used in the article, and even though there are also legitimate ones, that doesn't change the fact that there are also many tabloids used in there and those are the ones backing most of the serious accusations. I would also like to add that most of the legitimate sources are not written with a negative tone, the author changed it to turn this BLP into an attack page. Ilovesadgirlmusic (talk) 16:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm failing to see which you are talking about. The only yellow WP:RSP sources in the article ALLMUSIC (and Rolling Stone, though I think that would fall under culture not WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS). Most of the controversy sections comes from sources like independent, MNE, Variety, etc. WP:G10, which I think is what your gesturing at requires the  (emphasis added). This article doesn't qualify for that as it is sourced. Whether or not the article can be better balanced per WP:BLPBALANCE seems to be a question for normal editing (WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP). Cakelot1 (talk) 16:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I had already said this in the talk section yesterday, but I feel like it's more appropriate to have it on here:
 * After reading this, I can't help but feel that it does have a negative bias towards Matty Healy. While the information provided may be (in certain parts) factual, this page seems to focus primarily on Healy's controversies, even attributing him labels like misogyny, racism, homophobia, Islamophobia, antisemitism, and even of "fan endangerment" (lol????). However, many of these accusations have been sensationalized and exaggerated in the media, and it's not clear whether they're entirely accurate. In fact, some of the sources used on this page seem to be tabloids (low-quality and unreliable sources) that are known for their sensationalized reporting and their tendency to exaggerate or twist the truth to sell a story. It's not fair to paint someone as a hateful or bigoted person based on these kinds of polarizing views. Moreover, I consider that it's important to approach any information or claims made on social media platforms like Twitter or TikTok with a critical eye and to verify the accuracy of the information before accepting it as true (which is clearly not done here). On the other hand, it is abundantly clear that this page HAS selectively cut, edited, and/or modified quotes and content from various sources to fit the narrative that it is, for some reason, trying to push. Which is both a highly unprofessional and ridiculous approach that is not only misleading, but also calls into question the credibility of the entire page.
 * I also think it is necessary to differentiate between actual problematic behavior and harmless interactions. For example, banter with fans, peers, and friends should obviously NOT be presented as problematic or controversial.
 * Furthermore, this page almost completely disregards The 1975's significant achievements as a musicians and artists, which are essential components in understanding and appreciating their journey. Instead, this page seems to selectively choose small things that are blown out of proportion or made up, potentially to cater to cancel culture, which is both disappointing and misleading. (Someone please explain to me how it makes sense that there are only TWO paragraphs dedicated to their career while the rest is all about their supposed "controversies") While it is important to mention controversies, it is also necessary to provide context and present the information accurately, without exaggeration or sensationalism. I think it's worth noting that if we are going to talk about his controversies, we should also mention what resulted from them, such as his apologies and efforts towards learning and growth. As a matter of fact, I find it quite interesting that every single one of his controversies, even the smallest/dumbest ones, are fully explored on this page, while barely any of his activism is given the same attention, and the few positive aspects that are mentioned are simply glossed over. (Even Donald Trump's Wikipedia page is more positive like... make it make sense!)
 * Lastly, I'll like to add that this article's focus on negative criticisms violates many of Wikipedia's policies. (You don't see any other artists' Wikipedia pages being like "this person did this AND this is what their haters thought about it!" about every single thing.) Therefore, I suggest that either the whole article is edited, or the page is removed altogether. This article should not be made public for consumption due to its potential to mislead the reader, as it does not serve its purpose of presenting accurate and objective information.
 * (tl;dr: This article is completely ridiculous, awful, and incredibly biased. The writing is atrocious and all over the place. Most information is edited/cut/modified to fit an agenda. Many sources are not credible and/or were deliberately chosen to support the author's opinion.)
 * Violated core content policies that can be found in this article:
 * Neutral point of view (NPOV)
 * Verifiablity (V)
 * Due to the following violated content policies that according to Wikipedia a biography of a living person should have, this article can be considered an "attack page" which is why I think it should be deleted immediately:
 * Writing style: tone (WP:BLPSTYLE)
 * Writing style: balance (WP: BLPBALANCE)
 * Gossip and feedback loops (WP: BLPGOSSIP)
 * Contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced
 * Etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovesadgirlmusic (talk • contribs) 16:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. There's evidently sigcov with the amount of sources in the article. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 05:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep multitude of WP:RSs in the article are more than enough to demonstrate WP:GNG. This article, as well as this discussion, has been posted about in a sub-reddit dedicated to his band ( Edit: archive for deleted comments Cakelot1 (talk) 18:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)), with the gist of discussion seeming to be it should be deleted because it is to negative. To all new people coming here, it being negative isn't a reason to delete, when we are accurately representing the view found in Reliable Sources, which this seems to be. Cakelot1 (talk) 07:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Being negative IS a reason to delete according to Wikipedia's BLP guidelines. The article should remain neutral (which is not) and be balanced (which is also not, there are only two paragraphs that don't contain any criticism). Ilovesadgirlmusic (talk) 16:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You're new here(were you canvassed here?) and may not fully understand our policies. If there is only negative coverage of a person by sources, the article about them is going to be negative. That doesn't mean the article should be deleted. If there is more positive coverage of this person that is missing from the article, the solution is to add it, not delete the article. Tone issues can be fixed. If the sources are not reliable or make things up, please discuss that at WP:RSN. 331dot (talk) 17:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The issue is that there isn't only negative coverage of this person. There's over a decade of also very positive coverage in more reputable sources than PopBuzz. When I attempted to suggest an edit to include positive coverage (with sources from NME, the Guardian, and the BBC), it was rejected. The issue is this article is unbalanced and there is clearly a bias towards only including the most negative and sensationalized things written about the guy. The other issue, is there is no "media career" as the article claims. Everything related to his media presence is related to the band, so it should still be a redirect. Rosesinmymilktea (talk) 17:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Then your admitting that the article could be improved with sources, thus making it ineligible for deletion. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. We don't delete articles because we think they are being held hostage by a cabal. I would recommend you take it to WP:BLPN which is the appropriate venue for such BLP concerns. Cakelot1 (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You don't get to put words in anyone's mouth. I said in my comment that there is no "media career" The entire article is just a list of controversies, all related to the work within The 1975. Just like all the list of activism would be related to his work within The 1975. I agree with previous decisions to delete as there is not meaningful coverage outside of The 1975. Rosesinmymilktea (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, if we disregarded all the media coverage he's gotten in WP:RSs then he wouldn't pass WP:GNG. As far as I know that's not how any notability guideline work. Perhaps you could provide the policy and/or guideline you are using to make the judgment of about which sources you've decided we're not allowed to use. Also I'm sorry if I'm blind, but how are most of the controversies in the Social media section, for example, . Cakelot1 (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - coverage in BBC, Independent and The Guardian all covering different events and all giving Healy more than a trivial mention. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - clearly notable person with WP:SIGCOV. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete or *Redirect. WP:CSECTION: "An article dedicated to the negative criticism of a topic is usually discouraged because it tends to be a point-of-view fork, which is generally prohibited by the neutral point-of-view policy. Likewise, the article structure must protect neutrality. Sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged. Topical or thematic sections are frequently superior to sections devoted to criticism." This article violates this policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unknownadjacent (talk • contribs) 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Undecided / Comment - Since as far back as 2016 some very obsessive people have repeatedly created articles on Healy under several different titles, desperately trying to evade previous redirects to the band that had been agreed upon by consensus. See this, this, and this, among others. I voted to redirect in several of those older debates, and if I recall correctly, the previous attempts at separate articles for Healy were full of obsessive fancruft about his personal life. This time it looks like a different type of obsession, with an anti-fan going off on all the equally obsessive social media criticism that he has ever received. This time there are indeed reliable sources because Healy can't stay out of public trouble, but the article is poorly written and incorrectly focused. If it is kept, it should be severely cleaned up and then protected against haters. I'm skeptical on whether that would work long-term, so that's why I'm undecided. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 14:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The article is undergoing renovation. Please suggest more changes on the talk page. Probably, once the dust settles, some sort of CTOP|BLP page restrictions will be in order. Hopefully, Tobias will be able to change to ECP soon. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Done :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * -- I acknowledge your politeness, but enough with asking people (me and others throughout this discussion) to discuss things at the article's talk page, which assumes that the article will be kept and disregards the fact that this here AfD is still in progress and could lead to a non-keep consensus. I already made a suggestion here and it doesn't need to be repeated somewhere else. For now, the voting continues and this AfD page is where the action is. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 12:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. This has clearly been written with malice. 2A02:C7C:E0E8:2E00:FCA5:7B90:C4C0:3A8E (talk) 14:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Please offer evidence for the claim "written with malice". Are you saying the sources in this article are invented out of whole cloth? 331dot (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. Article is written in bad faith and reads more like an attack page. You can easily back up almost any claim with a source, but when you list out every piece of dirt you can find on someone regardless of its relevance to their biography without balancing that with their actual career or the activism they're actually known for, it seems more than suspect. If kept, almost everything under "Media Career" should be moved to a controversies section as Healy does not have a separate media career outside of the band. And the controversies chosen need to be reviewed and balanced as it currently seems to be written by someone looking to vent their hatred for a person. Rosesinmymilktea (talk) 17:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC) — Rosesinmymilktea (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Yes. Please make specific suggestions on the talk page. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I did. I had one that was backed up with multiple credible sources that was rejected because apparently it wasn't negative enough. So clearly there is an agenda with the way this page is being written, again seeming more like an attack page than a bio. That needs to be reviewed properly. Rosesinmymilktea (talk) 19:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Noting that the article is undergoing renovation. There is still some work to do there. The cure for its problems are editing. Not deletion. And no, fans from Reddit, it did not/does not meet WP:G10.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The issue is that the current article is basically only a "controversies" section that's been broken up to look like a bio. There is no "media career" for Healy outside of The 1975, so I do see people's point for wanting it reverted to a redirect - especially looking at the history of past attempts to make a page. Also, while the band has a large fanbase, acting like people are only offering edits/discussing issues because of Reddit is lacking in good faith. Rosesinmymilktea (talk) 20:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you need to discuss that on the article talk page. That is not an issue for the AfD. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Everything in my reply other than the first sentence is about why I agree with previous decisions to redirect. Stop trying to misrepresent someone's entire reply in order to discredit what they're saying. Rosesinmymilktea (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm here from reviewing the WP:DYK. What I'm seeing is a lot of !votes saying that the article should be deleted due to issues with neutrality. Deletion is not cleanup exists for a reason. Also, if most sources are negative, the article will have that bias naturally. By way of notability, WP:SIGCOV is evident, and the subject certainly passes WP:GNG by my interpretation. Note: Incoming Redditors would do well to avoid making arguements based on "I Don't Like It" and instead use a proper interpretation of our policies. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 07:35, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is plenty coverage and also he meets WP:BASIC. Pershkoviski (talk) 02:54, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm not familiar with why this person is controversial, but he apparently is. There is enough coverage to meet GNG.  And the potential BLP policy issues wouldn't require the article to be deleted. Walt Yoder (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: whatever his notability in the past, Healy seems to have now won significant coverage in reliable sources, for better or worse. The article in its current iteration is barely two weeks old, so I'd expect it to have a few warts, but that obviously doesn't warrant deletion. As an aside, I want to welcome all our new friends and remind them to duly note our existing policies on recruiting editors to influence a discussion. That said, I'm hopeful the energy this article seems to have generated can be channeled productively. — Rutebega ( talk ) 11:43, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Widespread significant coverage across a multitude of reliable sources concentrating on Healy as an individual (as opposed to the band's music) fulfils Wikipedia notabilty requirement of WP:BASIC. The delete arguments seem to be WP:NPOV content based. Such disagreement should be thrashed out on the Talk page. Rupples (talk) 22:28, 1 May 2023 (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.