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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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The result was keep, nomination withdrawn. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Matt Sanchez

Matt Sanchez (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Matt Sanchez was nominated for deletion on 2007-03-09. The result of the discussion was "merge to Matthew Sanchez". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Sanchez.

This is an autobiography that is completely unsourced. See Wikipedia: Attribution, a Policy, and Wikipedia: Autobiography, a guideline. Sanchez has provided most of the material himself; nothing should be in the article that isn't verifiable from other reliable published sources. Sanchez's blog is not a reliable source. Under Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, the entire contents of the article should be removed as being unverifiable. Rather than starting a revert war by blanking the page (which would be justifiable), I've nominated the article here.—Chidom talk  16:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

    • Nomination withdrawn. The article as it existed when I made the nomination appeared to have no references, just a bunch of external links at the bottom of the page. The one link identified as a reference was to a website that required a paid membership to access (after a "trial membership"). I honestly did not realize that the other links were meant to be references; none of the links were related to any part of the text. There has been some effort to do that, as WP:Citing sources requires; however, there is still a long way to go, and now some of the links are listed in both the references section and other sections. It isn't enough to just list a bunch of sources at the bottom of the page and have the reader plow through all of them to find out where a particular piece of information came from; each piece of information needs to be tied to its source. I apologize for rushing to nominate; it was not a well-considered response on my part.—Chidom talk  01:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


  • Obvious keep - Are you suggesting there are no reliable sources that Sanchez is a marine and a former performer in gay porn? Preposterous. Further, blogs may certainly be used as sources for the person who writes them as long as the information is relevant to the subject and only about the subject. WP:BLP requires the removal of information within the article, not removal of the article itself. If you have a content dispute, take it to the talk page or dispute resolution. Otto4711 17:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Obvious keep and just because the inline sources and external links are not connected per Help:Footnotes does not make it "completely unsourced". This is a content/formatting dispute, please do not misuse AFD. --Dhartung | Talk 17:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - And nomination in bad faith. There are dozens of sources, Matt gets thousands of google hits. The digger I deep the *more* sources I find. He has an article in the New York Post for heavens sake. He's been the subject of multiple articles in The Marine Times, he's been *on* the TV Show Hannity and Colmes. Just to name a tiny tiny few of the sources. Wjhonson 06:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Talking about the good faith or otherwise of the nominator is entirely irrelevant. The article will clearly be kept; why throw in an ad hominem? -GTBacchus(talk) 00:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Per ultra. Ulpian 19:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Aatombomb 05:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Obvious Keep - Subject is a media personality with both historic and current significance with numerous sources--DWadeRalston 05:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Obvious Keep Take a look at the number of porn actors who have their own bio pages. He should stay on that basis alone, aside from the additional notoriety bestowed by his political activities. Since the rule is well established on Wikipedia that porn actors may have their own bio pages, Matt Sanchez stays. What is the basis for excluding Matt Sanchez while allowing Mary Carey to have a standalone bio page? The fact that a subject is violating the rules and improperly editing his own bio is not sufficient to justify wholesale deletion. Deletion is not the proper remedy for the subject's bad acts.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.94.212.242 (talk • contribs) 00:12, 4 April 2007
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.