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. Tone 21:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Fincham[edit]

If you came here because this was mentioned on BBC Radio 1, 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)).

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

Contested prod. Reason given for the proposed deletion was "No independent third party sources provided to establish notability". I would agree that there are significant problems. WP:NOTE says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." This subject doesn't seem to meet that criteria. Of the three referenced web sites, only one is unconnected to the subject and that only includes the subject in a list, it doesn't provide significant coverage. To conclude, I don't think this subject meets the notability criteria and so I think it should be deleted.

I would note that this article, and its proposed deletion has been mentioned on BBC Radio 1 (Hello Scott Mills). Listeners were encouraged to try to campaign against the deletion. For the assistance of anyone unfamiliar with how deletion discussions work on Wikipedia, it is important to realise that they are not simply votes. Ideally anyone participating here should explain their opinion with reference to what the relevant Wikipedia policies say. The admin who closes this discussion won't simply count the votes but will instead make an assessment of the arguments made for and against with reference to Wikipedia policies. Adambro (talk) 08:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was the admin who first identified the problem with this. There is little need for me to duplicate Adambro's considered and accurate reasoning. It breaches WP:BLP by not containing references to independent reliable sources. It fails Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Basic_criteria. The JPS ^{talk to me} 08:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:SPIP says, "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself... have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it." That hasn't happened here - we have artificial promotion from a show in which Fincham is involved. And being followed on Twitter does not make one notable either. Of course, if any visitors wish to add reliable, independent sources, they are most welcome. StAnselm (talk) 09:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being one of the lead campaigners in the effort to save this articles, I spent a LONG time (probably too long considering my dissertation is due in soon) searching the Internet for independent coverage. I can confirm that there genuinely is none, besides the one fact about twitter I found. hence my decision is for this articles deletion. --Kingsmill (talk) 10:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not seeing any independent coverage that would provide evidence of notability. The closest thing there is to a claim of notability here is 'he is also the second highest producer of British radio on twitter being topped only by Rachel Jones' - except that Rachel Jones is itself a redirect, as 'large number of Twitter followers' is not by itself grounds for notability. As it is, this is practically an WP:A7 candidate. Robofish (talk) 17:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am the original creator of Matt Fincham's Wikipedia account, so I suppose I'm likely to be biased; however, he is well-known throughout the UK and there must be surely be millions of people who know who he is. Furthermore, despite being most famous for the Chris Moyles Show, he has broadcast in some capacity on three previous shows, and it is likely that his fame will increase in the future. Apologies though for not including more references; I used to know Matt vaguely many many years ago and consequently did not rely on references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Discombobulating (talk • contribs) 01:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find nothing about him other than trivial mentions, and the aforementioned comments about Twitter. "It is likely that his fame will increase in the future" isn't a reason to keep; Wikipedia's not the BBC staff directory, and there are literally tens of thousands of people who appear on the 59 radio stations and 24 TV channels that make up the bloated beast that is the BBC. – iride scent 01:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Twitter ratings are not accepted to establish notability. Johnuniq (talk) 08:43, 8 April 2010 (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.