Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Sheffield (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. Feel free to merge or redirect. Missvain (talk) 00:49, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Sheffield

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The subject doesn't meet GNG. Of the current sources, most were written by Sheffield himself. The Ives article doesn't mention Sheffield and the only independent source that does, the Media Matters post, is by a partisan advocacy group and shouldn't be counted for notability. I did a search and was unable to locate any substantial independent coverage on Sheffield. (t · c) buidhe 05:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 05:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 05:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the first deletion discussion, back in 2015, closed as redirect. (t · c) buidhe 05:21, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:16, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The journalist himself his non notable, but his notability is vested in his author page on well notable organization, but the concern is about the independent of the source of the subject. Lynndonald (talk) 13:16, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - active journalist referenced by multiple sources even in the past week (The New York Times, Newsweek, Detroit Metro Times, NBC, ...) 73.69.184.160 (talk) 12:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:17, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:56, 26 November 2020 (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.