Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter D Matthews

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 speedily deleted (G7, author request) by Bishonen. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 23:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admin closure reviewed and endorsed by bd2412 T 23:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Peter D Matthews

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

Non-notable fringe author known for having recently proposed yet another hypothesis for the Shakespeare authorship question. No secondary sources, no signs of independent coverage. (When you search for sources, don't mistake him for another "Peter Matthews" who is a well-published literary critic.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:35, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not satisfy WP:BIO as there is no indication of independent significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. The subject appears to have worked in a field unrelated to history ([1]) and the award mentioned in the article is not sufficient to establish notability. Johnuniq (talk) 07:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are 600 citations if you care to look at his book which is sold throughout the world through the most notable bookstores! The details about the author were taken directly from his bio as cited, therefore your assertions are proven false and malicious. He is a reputable doctor of philosophy and history. He is not a literary critic - you are completely mistaken. Try searching Dr Peter D Matthews in google and you will be surprised. Or search any one of his books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by George134 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mr. Matthews has not been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources (or even one, for that matter), so he does not meet WP:GNG. If/when his work receives more attention and discussion, an article would be perfectly appropriate. A side-note to the article creator: don't be offended by this; the article's subject just doesn't meet notability standards at this time. Please don't be discouraged, and keep up your work on WP. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 18:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - self-published author whose books have received no significant coverage. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note I've deleted a significant portion of the text as a copyvio. Monty ₈₄₅ 21:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted the article. The creator has blanked it, and there are no other significant edits to it. I take this as a request for speedy deletion. Bishonen | talk 22:00, 18 August 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.