Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Collins

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Collins

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

Was a political campaign worker for Rand Paul and Ron Paul. He managed Rand Paul's Facebook and twitter accounts for the campaign. It's vague on what he did for Ron Paul, but appears he was a "social media adviser" for the Minnesota campaign. The references are forums, YouTube, Photobucket and blogs. No independent and reliable reference to back up anything. There are 3 SPAs working and one identified himself as Matt Collins. Prod was contested because, "Matt Collins is a very important and notable liberty activist. He ran the war room and won Minnesota for Ron Paul, he convinced Rand to run, and he advised Thomas Massie. He's a Legend in the liberty movement. Even has his own smiley in TWO forums". Bgwhite (talk) 22:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 22:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Relevant person, plenty of stuff about him over the web. Con Rev Null (talk) 22:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Matt Collins is very well known in the liberty community. He's highly respected as a campaign adviser and manager.JebbySanderson (talk) 22:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's great for him, but what you say has no bearing on the matter since it doesn't come with a bunch of evidence. Drmies (talk) 15:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets the Notability guidelines. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 22:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How so? All the refs are from the Ron Paul website, youtube and republican party website, none of them sufficient to establish notability. Google doesn't turn anything up in reliable sources. Valenciano (talk) 22:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He was essential in the campaign, and seems to meet WP: A7. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 01:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment- It's a lot more notable than garbage ("Malaysian yachtsman") like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malik_Sulaiman Also, there used to be a lot of ink written about this guy in the Nashville Post, but those pages have since expired. Con Rev Null (talk) 22:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide references to those articles? Even if the links are expired, do you have hard copies from which you can provide article titles, bylines, dates, and page numbers? LadyofShalott 01:21, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is Malik Sulaiman "garbage" because he's Malaysian or because he's a yachtsman? Phil Bridger (talk) 16:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's garbage because it's a very poor excuse for a Wikipedia article. Matt Collins' Wikipedia page has probably been visited more times in three days than Sulaiman's in a month. Collins is way more notable than some dude who sails on boats, and that's inexplicably allowed to stay. Con Rev Null (talk) 19:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not inexplicable at all. Wikipedia uses a particular, somewhat jargony, meaning of notability. Sulaiman has been show to meet that definition. Collins has not. You have not answered my question about theNashville Post articles. If actual references to such could be provided, it might make the difference this article needs. LadyofShalott 23:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No independent references that I can see. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a bad argument to make. The only possibly notable Matt Collins I could dig up is the Yugoslavian in the Rockabilly Hall of Fame [1]. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the nominator correctly states, there are no reliable sources covering this individual and the "references" currently in the article are a mixture of youtube, blog and his employers website. Fails both WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Valenciano (talk) 09:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources. Even the FEC link that is supplied as a reference does not mention Matt Collins. If someone could locate the articles about him that were said to have appeared in the Nashville Post, that could make a difference. EdJohnston (talk) 16:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. There appears to be a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Location (talk) 18:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable per WP:POLITICIAN. Closing admin should note probable SPA activity. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - definitely non-notable per WP:POLITICIAN. This is a vanity entry. Note that the page was created by "Intact Molls" which is an anagram of Matt Collins. He's trolling ya'll. Angelatc (talk) 17:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not only is he not even the least bit notable, the article contains no useful information and lacks citations. Byates5637 (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - References in article do not establish notability as defined by Wikipedia, and requests to provide references that supposedly exist have been ignored: no prejudice against recreation if and when such references can be produced. LadyofShalott 00:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete page was created by Matt Collins himself. The username Intact Molls is an anagram of his name... -=Eduardo=- (talk) 03:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the anagram certainly gives major room for suspicion that it is an autobiography, but it's not proof. Even if it was, that's not grounds in and of itself for deletion. The lack of notability is the reason it needs to be deleted. LadyofShalott 03:18, 11 June 2012 (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.