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 — Caknuck 16:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt McInerney[edit]

To quote from the article lede: "Matt McInerney is the founder of social networking site Gleamd. Gleamd is a new social bookmarking site where instead of voting on stories or links, you vote for people based on their bios. Gleamd has been growing quickly since its launch a mere two weeks ago, and has already attracted investment." Only sources are blogs and PR sites, and Gleamd appears to still be in beta testing. NawlinWiki 21:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What other sources are needed? The blogs are notable ones, Mashable and Downloadsquad. Does it need to be in print? Andweallfalldown 21:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blogs are not reliable sources which are required for notability. Any sort of actual news coverage is better than a blog, it does not have to be print. If his site is not notable, it is highly unlikely he is. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight." Both Mashable and Downloadsquad have an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight. And Wired (magazine) was also mentioned as a sourceAndweallfalldown 22:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added a PodTech interview as a source Andweallfalldown 22:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as per Andweallfalldown. The fact that blogs can easily be created and run by individuals without evidence of credibility does not automatically discredit every blog that exists. Further, the sources in this article do not establish sufficient notability is not a proper reason for deletion as per WP:DP; it must be evident that such notability cannot reasonably be established based on a demonstrated probable lack of potential sources, not lack of currently listed sources. This condition for deletion is far from being met. --xDanielx^Talk 22:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as per Andweallfalldown and xDanielx. Mathmo ^Talk 22:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A Google news archive search for "Matt McInerney" +Gleamd gets no results. Also, that Wired Blog (separate from the magazine) citation seems to mention McInerney once, by first name only. The Mashable article does not give his name at all. None of the articles are actually about McInerney, just things he was involved in. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 22:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, promotional. Realkyhick 22:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete' per Z-man. He seems to be on the fringe, but not quite notable enough yet. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 23:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete from the very article, not yet notable, hough it tries to talk around the fact. "Attracted investment" with no further details is not notability. DGG (talk) 07:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per Z-man and TenPound Hammer. Created "two weeks ago". Bearian 16:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete creating a non-notable web site does not make a person notable; the article itself says that his site started only 2 weeks ago, which means that the article actually asserts the non-notability of its subject. Life, Liberty, Property 16:32, 7 August 2007 (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.