Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Kelly (speaker)

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, though some concerns remain. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Kelly (speaker)

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

I'm not certain about his notability. The sources are largely not independent of him. He has a NYT bestseller and I've found this and this but those are closer to ads than anything independent. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep/Ambivalent - I've been following this article for a little while since a few editors with clear COIs came by to edit it. I'm kind of on the fence, but the person does seem notable enough to keep as an article (though better sources are needed). It's not quite NUKEANDPAVE territory since I gutted it of the horribly POV and SOAP stuff back in April. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I received notice regarding potential deletion of the entry for Matthew Kelly. If accepting recommendations... It would seem relevant, at the very least, for any successful author to be worthy of an entry. That, along with Kelly's significant activity as a speaker are also quite relevant.

I'm not sure if motivation to delete the article was inspired by efforts from Kelly's staff to modify the article, but I hope this is not the case. In fact, their effort to understand and work with Wikipedia editors appears very genuine (see Matthew Kelly / Talk page). I believe their contributions would do a great deal to improve the quality of the article. Yobbo14 (talk) 00:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was not. What would be helpful was if someone could find 'independent' sources that discuss Kelly. For example, I added this magazine interview which is the only link that isn't from Kelly himself, a business of his or someone marketing his stuff. The staff should be able to find interviews, newspaper press articles, something that isn't from him himself discussing him. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning. I have plenty of outside resources that can be used in this article. I've listed a sampling here. The two that were referenced above are in fact outside sources for local newspapers (wearecentralPA.com and auburnpub.com). These newspapers are not affiliated with Matthew Kelly or Dynamic Catholic. Here is a sampling of other notable outside sources available. The sources that follow are not affiliated with Matthew Kelly or Dynamic Catholic. here here here here here here here here Please let me know what else I need to provide to indicate Matthew Kelly's notability. --Jenna at DCI (talk) 13:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review in more detail but the newspapers, this and this among others are basically just advertisements. I don't see any actual information from those newspapers that could be added to the article (that he spoke at various places is not really information). I already added teh American Catholic information. This is basically a blog but more importantly, has no details that can be added to the article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What are you looking for to indicate notability? If you tell me what you are looking for, I will find the necessary sources to cite. --Jenna at DCI (talk) 15:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Book reviews are the best way to establish notability of an author. The source of the book review has to be "reliable", not just blogs or amazon customers, rather published magazines, newspapers and other reliable institutions. I found some here: [1][2][3] .. but more would help. -- GreenC 20:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - in a series of recent afds, we have come to a consensus that having a Times bestseller does not confer automatic notability. Bearian (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AUTHOR, book reviews. I've listed three book reviews above but am sure there are more as he has books that have sold well. The major books are Rediscover Catholicism, The Rhythm of Life, The Dream Manager and The Seven Levels of Intimacy. I'm also swayed by the comment "Internationally known Catholic speaker and author Matthew Kelly" by a publication of the Archdioceses of St. Louis.[4] -- GreenC 20:20, 11 June 2014 (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.