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. NAUTHOR has been sufficiently demonstrated. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Lynn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG - none of the references I have reviewed meet the standard for WP:SIGCOV. Nothing at WP:AUTHOR seems to apply. To acknowledge the points made in the previous nomination which closed as "no consensus" - he may be a writer for several news outlets, and have some minor quotations in other publications, but these facts do not convey notability. Paradoxsociety 08:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Paradoxsociety 08:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Paradoxsociety 08:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from nominator - it is worth noting that the original author of the article is a user who goes by the same name: User:Matthew Lynn, making this an apparent WP:AUTOBIO. Paradoxsociety 09:09, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per reasons discussed in the nomination. North8000 (talk) 12:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments 1. The first AfD closed under two weeks ago. I thought there had to be more time between nominations. Or am I missing something?

2. I'm seeing a number of hits in Gale Literature that I can sort through and try to incorporate. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I searched around for a definitive guideline on renominations in the case of "no consensus" and was unable to find anything official. If I missed something I'll be happy to withdraw the nomination. Paradoxsociety 19:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE links to this essay which says 2 months, but as it is an essay only linked to policy, I am unsure as to whether it is policy. It is very soon to renominate. I'm not asking you to withdraw, and I will see what I can add to it to address the nomination concerns. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 21:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did come across this essay and given that it didn't appear to be policy and did not have a link to a formal guideline I opted to be WP:BOLD and renominate with a clearer explanation. I do recognize it is a "quick" renomination, and I do generally agree with the points in that essay as they relate to specific guidelines for "keep" or "delete" closures but I am of the opinion that discussions should be left open/relisted until a consensus can be reached. I should also note that this article is in the oldest part of theWikiProject Notability backlog which is 11 years long - I did first attempt to determine if any sources existed to prove notability so that it could just be untagged, but was not successful, thus the AfD. All this being said, I do hope you are successful in improving the article! Paradoxsociety 00:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not enough to demonstrate notability as a writer. I believe in the case of closing as "no consensus" there is no actual time limit to reopening the discussion, since in fact it was basically a close saying we have not made any decision.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 13:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I made amendments at the last nom, and voted keep based on wp:author 1. He is widely cited by many other authors on matters of financial reporting. I have no disagreement at all that it has been renom as the original nom was closed with one keep and one delete, and not enough discussion. I hope it is better this time round. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 15:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now; may update with a strike later. Meets WP:NAUTHOR #3 with his collective body of work. "Multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" exist. I added some reviews and made some other adjustments to the article. Hope to add more later. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 22:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment isn't Kirkus accepted as being enough for reviews? Davidstewartharvey (talk) 19:10, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*delete no sinificant coverage. Boleyn (talk) 05:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC) you already voted above[reply]

• Did Boleyn accidentally vote twice? Want to choose one to strike? DiamondRemley39 (talk) 10:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Would the previous delete voters please weigh in on the coverage in The Bookseller, Library Journal, Publishers Weekly, Kirkus Reviews, CHOICE, etc. as applies to WP:AUTHOR? I'm surprised it got through 2 AfDs without anyone adding the Kirkus and Publishers Reviews which, for me, appear in the first few results of searching the name + reviews. Then again, maybe most were not familiar enough to know what they are. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 11:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think they're enough, and they have been in other AfDs, many times. I consider Publishers Weekly, especially, to be more tied to industry, in the way that Billboard and Variety are tied to theirs, but they're all RS. It's always "nice" to find something beyond Kirkus and Publishers Weekly... Caro7200 (talk) 13:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Besides the reviews mentioned so far, the article also cites reviews of his non-fiction books in Management Today, Foreign Affairs and CHOICE: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries. I believe this helps to establish notability per WP:NAUTHOR. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP He is seen as an expert in his field by the number of different major news sources that let him publish articles about finance. Google news search "Matthew Lynn" "finance". His books get enough reviews to have their own articles, they proven notable, and writing notable books is how you determine if an author is notable. Also the last AFD just closed. The nominator contacted all three who participated in it, knowing two of them had said delete. Dream Focus 21:48, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I did make an article for one of his books yesterday, just a stub to get things started. The Month of the Leopard. Dream Focus 19:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Does Boleyn want to revote now Kirkus found? On previous afd for Charles Borden he withdrew his nom because Kirkus Reviews were found? Davidstewartharvey (talk) 20:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I put no great trust in reviews by Kirkus or LJ or Bookseller, but a review in Choice means he has also written a serious academic book. of significance. DGG ( talk ) 02:58, 18 August 2020 (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.