Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Moss

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. czar ⨹ 02:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Moss

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

Non-notable music producer lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 17:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 17:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources that would suggest this produce meets the notability guidelines set out at WP:ANYBIO and WP:MUSIC. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - unsure and conflicted. Most producers are not notable, but I'd like to see better sourcing. Bearian (talk) 16:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Absolutely zero reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and fails to state a reason why subject should be considered notable in lieu of sources. A fan site and a listing in iTunes do not count. Googling turned up nothing. Not just nothing significant, I mean nothing. Msnicki (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I really tried to find something, and couldn't. It appears that his only claims to fame are to have made three remixes for RuPaul, and a promo single for one of the lesser Jacksons. Bearian (talk) 01:38, 2 December 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.