Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Hagger

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 delete. postdlf (talk) 13:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Hagger

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 22:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not encyclopedic. The problem is that Wikipedia notable is a very strange commodity. There needs to be a community debate to formulate what is and is not notable. The definitions used are not very good. Whiskeymouth (talk) 04:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete - This article is as encyclopedic as any others. Granted, you might not be aware of individuals within the technology startup sector, however, there is plenty of non-trivial evidence online regarding Matt Hagger. He has been recognised as an individual by companies such as British Airways, receiving their Great Britons award, and Growing Business in 2009, having been selected for their Young Guns Award. Companies such as Zkatter were awarded and received funding for their development on Bada, and been receipient of many other technology industry awards. In addition to this he has been featured on panels and been featured on national news outlets for his opinions and insight into the technology space. --Westwired (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Though there are lots of references listed, none obviously meet WP:BIO criteria (no in-depth coverage from reliable sources, just mentions of businesses he's been involved with, press releases, or simple listings). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, Ohnoitsjamie, and others, as subject appears to lack significant coverage from reliable publications at this time. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 00:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches found nothing noticeably better and the current article is not better convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:51, 6 April 2016 (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.