Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Wood (2nd nomination)

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. czar 08:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Wood

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

This was previously deleted with a unanimous 10 out of 10 delete vote. It has been reinstated, again by a COI/SPA (an issue which plagued the original) for what appears to be overtly promotional reasons.

I tried to CSD it when I noticed it had returned, but an admin (User:Boing! said Zebedee) rejected it with the reasoning 'Article is quite different from the AFD-deleted one, with signficantly different sources'. To me, from memory, it has a very similar tone. Feels almost identical to the article I remember nominating (bearing in mind this was 9 months ago and I can't see it).

I am still utterly unconvinced. I do not consider what I see as significant, independent coverage - several articles about Amazon have a quote from him, a short soundbite given by virtue of his role with them. Just one article actually focuses on him in a manner in which I would consider supports the notability argument, a feature in the Puget Sound Business Journal.

This seems to be very routine and minimal coverage, and does not add up to notability sufficient for WP:GNG. For example, Jo Bertram from Uber (UK/Europe manager) gets considerably more press coverage than him (e.g. when commenting on a ruling by TfL or regarding labour law) but still does not have an article, perhaps because this coverage is considered WP:Routine. In comparison, the few sources in this article constitute minimal coverage and not what is enough to sustain an article. Rayman60 (talk) 01:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can see the deleted version, and while some of the wording has been altered, the structure and content are pretty much the same. In some places, there are near-identical constructions, like "he drives programs" (deleted version) vs "where he is responsible for driving the product" (current). I concur that this article still doesn't demonstrate notability per the nominator's reasoning. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as faiing the prof test. Went to medical school blah blah did this little thing blah blah worked with some obscure redlinked person blah blah a few crappy cites blah blah blah. Bearian (talk) 21:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For example, I looked at the New York Times article, but the star of that one is Andrew R. Jassy, who is a senior vice president. This person is just manager of "product strategy" (marketing?) with one promotional quote. W Nowicki (talk) 19:21, 29 January 2017 (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.