Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Corriel

: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. After 3 weeks, there still does not seem to be consensus in either direction. DGG ( talk ) 07:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

=[[Matt Corriel]]=

:{{la|Matt Corriel}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Corriel}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{Find sources|Matt Corriel}})

General notability not established / Poor sources - lack of sources for BLP Dawnseeker2000 01:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Delete There's some small level of news coverage, mostly trivial or dating from his college days. In my opinion, fails WP:BIO. Ray^Talk 04:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Weak keep. I cleaned up the article and improved the sourcing. Two of his musicals have won significant regional awards; I think that may be enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Keep – Not a huge amount of coverage, but enough for WP:N. I added citations to articles in the Telegram & Gazette. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Delete. A BLP with questionable notability and utter lack of community interest (TWO relistings!) is a pretty clear cut delete. -- ۩ Mask 00:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Keep per significant coverage in reliable sources. A mere lack of participation in an AFD is not, by itself, evidence of non-notability. Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Weak delete. Too little coverage of him as a composer, and most of it rather local. Does not quite pass WP:CREATIVE, IMO. Nsk92 (talk) 06:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

: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.