Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Matthews (classicist)

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. --BDD (talk) 22:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Matthews (classicist)

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

Not notable [1]. No notable publications. Lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Most sources are by him not about him. One of a glut of articles on seemingly non notable St Peter's College old boys. Wikipedia is not a webhost for a collection bios of a schools former students. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable academic fails WP:SCHOLAR. Most refs are things by him or are to local/vanity/trivial sources, hence failing WP:GNG. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DElete. I can't find anything much in GS, which would be the only chance for this BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete no evidence of real notability. No in depth coverage in independent sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Searched for the book "Classical New Zealand poetry" and unable to find any book reviews. It's an old book so maybe they are in offline archives but it seems unlikely there would 7 or 10 book reviews in reliable sources required to overcome all the other lack of sourcing. The book itself is not well known according to library and reported user holdings. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There just isn't any evidence that his writing has made the impact needed for WP:PROF#C1, nor that he is notable in any other way. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:16, 9 November 2013 (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.