Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew (Matt) Bennett

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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Dusti^*poke* 05:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew (Matt) Bennett

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

Non-notable producer/director, fails WP:GNG, contested PROD. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. I PRODded this the first time; proper BLP sources were never added. Drmies (talk) 03:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MQS has again done a terrific job of sourcing an actor's BLP. The venom is unnecessary. I withdraw my 'delete' vote, and urge the nominator to withdraw this AfD. MQS, thank you for the work; the rest of the commentary I will attempt to bury under Christmas cheer. Drmies (talk) 16:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if the commentary offended. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

STRONG Keep of an article on a notable producer and director, one who easily meets WP:BIO through WP:GNG, WP:ENT and WP:CREATIVE, [1] I note with angst that the article was templated for deletion only one minute after its creation,[2] and then sent to AFD only eight minutes after the second deletion template was contested.[3] Surely this was not simply in reprisal? Or is this the manner now with which new editors are to be treated? Have WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD been now assigned as historical??? Is this the new way of Wikipedia? Shameful. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: It seems this fellow has greater notability for his stagework, than for his work in film and television.[4] Pity that this was not discovered before bringing it to AFD. The article WILL be expanded and peoperly sourced within hours. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for your consideration and substantial help (MQ Schmidt is remarkably thorough). My skills as an editor here are clearly raw at best, but as an ardent user of Wikipedia, I chose to leap in and attempt what I felt was a worthy page. I hope the recent changes have proven that it is in fact a notable entry. I will continue to research what may be sufficiently noteworthy, add/clarify as appropriate and encourage others to do the same. Please consider removing the notice (and have a great holiday). --Silentcrow (talk) 04:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The notice will be removed when this discussion is closed by an uninvolved party per one of the results described at How an AfD discussion is closed. As a newer editor, you're learning that there are a lot of rules that govern article creation, so don't be discouraged. You may find the essay at User:MichaelQSchmidt/Newcomer's guide to guidelines to be helpful. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 26 December 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.