Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuart Matthew

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 speedy deleted by Jimfbleak

Stuart Matthew

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

No indication of notability - having 100+ subscribers is pathetic! Laun chba ller 14:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 16:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 16:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 16:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nonentity I would have speedied if it hadn't been AFDed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Try speedying it anyway.--Laun chba ller 07:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A vanity article, obviously coming nowhere near to satisfying Wikipedia's notability requirements. I agree it could have been speedily deleted, but since it is here, and since it has already been twice deleted under a different title, we may as well let this discussion take its course to settle the matter once and for all. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Undeletion This article is useful for Stuart Matthew's fans, I agree that this is under satisfying Wikipedia's notability requirements.The article is also mentioned in few other article and Stuart Matthew is enough famous to be discussed about. So, I think it should not be deleted. "MarshallDSJ" (talk) 23:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)— MarshallDSJ (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. MarshallDSJ is now blocked as a CheckUser-confirmed sockpuppet of JackWinslow. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:WEB. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Undeletion This should not be deleted at all.Firstly, I also thought that it should be deleted but when I went through that and links provided in the article was under satisfying Wikipedia's notability requirements. I'm against of the deletion of this. "WikiLoverTeam" (talk) 23:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)— WikiLoverTeam (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WikiLoverTeam is now blocked as a CheckUser-confirmed sockpuppet of JackWinslow. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion Useful Article "JackWinslow" (talk) 23:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)— JackWinslow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. JackWinslow (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)— JackWinslow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment Almost certainly sockpuppets here, I've started an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JackWinslow‎. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The three accounts that !voted "Undeletion" are Technically indistinguishable.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's clearly no evidence of notability for this amateur YouTube singer. Mr Potto (talk) 13:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.