Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Granite

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. MBisanz ^talk 01:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Granite

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

Article was created by a blocked sock puppeteer/paid editor, and has not received substantial edits by other users. As the article was created before he/she was caught (but well after the abuse started), it doesn't qualify for CSD. I proposed deletion but it was deprodded on the basis of winning an Emmy Award, as claimed in the article. Of course, if you actually follow the refs, you see that it's not an Emmy Award but a "Lower Great Lakes Emmy Award". Needless to say, that does not confer notability. Fails WP:GNG. If there's a surprising claim to notability, I'd still suggest this be WP:TNTed given the context, and recreated from scratch. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:59, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:00, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:00, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is very tough and there's probably a good case for keeping the article as well. The Lower Great Lakes Emmy Award certainly isn't a sign of notability, but the fact he's appeared on USA Today and some other bits do start to create a case. Given the story behind the creation of the article, though, I am inclined to suggest deletion. KaisaL (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Delete/Keep decisions are based on whether a subject is notable and not on its article history. USA Today considers him to be a notable expert in his field per this and this, for example. WGN also considers him an expert [1]. Other sources provide a biographical sketch.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:21, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- USA Today writes about his expertise because he's an employee of USA Today. We need sources independent of the subject. I guess an interview on an AM radio station helps, but working for USA Today does not -- we'd need more articles like the WGN one about him/his work (preferably better than WGN). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find nothing about him to use as a reference. Everything I find is either his own work, or others picking up on the "deals" he broadcasts or writes about. Those are not about him, and there's nothing substantial about them - just where to get the lowest prices on various products. LaMona (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete winning a local emmy does not make someone notable. Having under 150,000 Youtube followers almost seems like a sign you are not notable, clearly not one you are. We have no even moderately outside sources, and having some of his work published in non-local publications does not change the failure to even appraoch notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:53, 10 July 2016 (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.