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 of the debate was no consensus to delete, but it sure needs a lot of work. Mailer Diablo 16:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Mathews[edit]

Non-notable, vanity, fails WP:BIO, and possible hoax. Only 788 unique Google results [1], only some of which are relevant. --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 02:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I haven't found the link through Google, but it looks like a copyvio to me. TKE 03:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If it were wikified, it'd be nothing but blue link name droping. I'm finding a lack of verifibility and notability without verification is shot. TKE 05:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Here's the website for this person: http://www.scottmathews.com/ I have no idea if it's accurate or not. --Xyzzyplugh 03:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found the same website, and a number of other mentions of this guy. If this is a hoax, someone has gone to a lot of trouble . . . Crypticfirefly 03:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure about website's accuracy, as it could be vanity. Could someone try to verify it? Doesn't seem to be any mention of Scott Mathews on the Beach boys page. --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 03:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not so much vanity as perhaps stretching the importance of things a bit? I've done a ProQuest search and have found references in early 1990's issues of the San Francisco Chronicle and Downbeat to this guy being a studio musician (playing drums on an album for Keith Richards, for example) and being a record producer & songwriter with Ron Nagle. (Apparently a song they wrote together was recorded by The Tubes?) The March 21, 1993 issue of the Chronicle says he was one of the "busiest and most prolific musicians/producers in the Bay Area." For what that's worth. Crypticfirefly 04:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep If the Rolling Stone reference is accurate, then he seems vaguely notable. JoshuaZ 04:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Considering the tone, this seems like vanity. Royboycrashfan 06:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy to creator, User:Tikitown, which is the name of the guy's studio, it seems. Just zis Guy you know? 11:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and userfy, vanity. --Terence Ong 14:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, hack and slash down to verifiable stub. Monicasdude 14:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaving allegations of hoax aside, Delete as non-notable vanity. RGTraynor 19:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. And improve. --Shindig Me 19:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, though it's in desperate need of cleanup. His Allmusic page makes him look pretty good, and this discography on Yahoo music comes back with credits on 126 different albums. -Colin Kimbrell 22:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless verified. Stifle 22:53, 31 March 2006 (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.