Matthew Brown (businessperson) : The only coverage is rumor mill stuff churned out around the time of Virgin Orbit's fall, and the deal never closed - they liquidated around 2 months after these stories were put out.  BrigadierG ( talk ) 13:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Texas .  BrigadierG ( talk ) 13:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hawaii and Wisconsin .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Probably a COI creation, I checked a number of references and very little that is said in the article is true/verifiable.  He specifically did NOT fund Virgin Orbit, and did NOT consult with UC Berkeley.  He actually seems to be a bit (or more than a bit) of a con man, making absurd claims.  From the Quartz article: "Halsey said Brown told him he started his career as a teenage tech entrepreneur working with Mark Zuckerberg and the Winklevoss brothers before selling a company to Salesforce. Then, while a 19-year-old enrolled at TCU, Brown won an executive position and, shortly thereafter, the top job at a Texas family office managing $6 billion in assets. He advised the Obama White House and the famed investor T. Boone Pickens on renewable energy."  None of this can be verified.  Lamona ( talk ) 02:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note that I have reduced the article to verifiable facts and removed non-reliable sources.  It may be easier now to assess.  Lamona ( talk ) 15:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It appears the user making the latest edits (including odd "verification required" tags on locations where the subject works, which are clearly on the official Website of the companies as well as Google Maps) is closely related to the Quartz article’s author, a COI.  Multiple edits mischaracterize the article, for instance the latest, where the edit mischaracterized the Quartz perceived “hit piece" by adding “(this was denied by the institution [10]),” when in fact the article said “the lab told Quartz he had no official role. But its director, professor Daniel Kammen, said he did recognize Brown from open meetings at the lab."  That comment by the lab’s director could easily render one to be a Consultant. The Quartz writer fails to substantiate any stance with the DOE/Biden Administration/DOD consultantships, therefore such can be, in theory, deemed true, especially given his credit in a DOE Energy Efficiency handbook (sourced [1] ). The same would apply for the subject’s CNBC comments (sourced). Further, the Quartz article mentions Energent “has never filed 13F reports required by money managers with more than $100 million in public securities” when in the very next sentence the author quotes PitchBook which clearly states Energent never has had and has public securities.  Further, the article alleges litigation but fails to mention that the subject’s firm was the Plaintiff in the Action and the judge in the counter-suit suggested that, in court filings, the Defendant’s claims (American Express transfers/Plantiff putting the wind farm in receivership) “weren’t worth a tinker’s damn.”  (Notably, this wind farm was one of the more modern CFIUS-involved pieces of litigation: "Order Signed by the President of the United States," - then President Obama - a notable acquisition, Huerfano River Wind Farm , by the subject. This is important as it supports the subjects preference for SPVs, as he calls them, but this one was leaked as due to the CFIUS nature.)  The law firm the subject of the article used, upon research, looks to be settlement counsel, but the Quartz article author obfuscated the true facts of the single case the author wrote about, and wrote a less than favorable, arguably factually incorrect, article.  The Quartz article, instead, seems to favor the subject more than hurt the subject given the lack of denials for comment, outside of Pickens which quotes more-or-less his right-hand man/friend, regarding the subject’s claims  (Facebook, family office, etc.), but also shows a clear bias against the subject, again a potential COI, and, again, a potentially from the author of the Quartz article.  Regardless, this objection is not about Quartz  (the subject's PPP loans and "high-rolling entrepreneur who spends time in Hawaii and travels by private jet to visit factories building high-altitude blimps and satellite launchers" are irrelevant), but the validity of the subject, and if he maintains the ownership in the companies which PitchBook et al. suggest is accurate, this is an objection for deletion and motion to keep, at least for now.  FourDoorsOneExit  ( talk )  06:33, 10 June 2024  (UTC)  [ reply ] You, above, it would be best for you to return and sign your edit here.  (I thought if one failed it would happened automatically - obviously not.)  Some of your statements here are hard to accept.  For example: "“(this was denied by the institution [10]),” when in fact the article said “the lab told Quartz he had no official role. But its director, professor Daniel Kammen, said he did recognize Brown from open meetings at the lab."  That comment by the lab’s director could easily render one to be a Consultant. " No, being recognized in a meeting does not make one a consultant.  For other statements here, the Wikipedia standard is to cite reliable sources, so if you have sources for your information you need to add them to the article.  Owning one or more companies does not automatically make one notable for a Wikipedia article.  Use of sources like facebook or the company web page will not support ones' claims; the reliable sources must be independent of the person.  Lamona  ( talk )  14:46, 12 June 2024  (UTC)  [ reply ] I made the edit with the signature block.  You appear lost in the weeds as to my comments.  The article never mentioned "one meeting" nor did Dr. Kammen  (though you did so as to paint a false narrative).  In fact, Dr. Kammen said "open meetings," plural.  The subject is also a contributor in the Guide authored by the lab's director.  Having attended public meetings, as the director said, and assisting in academic/legislative papers would suggest a "consultant" and/or "contributor."  The subject clearly had a significant role, but also clearly not as significant as a C-Suite, per se.  I agree with the comment of owning one or more companies does not "automatically make one notable for a Wikipedia article," but that is not at dispute here.  The comment of Facebook or the companies Websites was to address a seemingly zealous editor tagging where the companies are located when they clearly, and specifically, passed Facebook and Google Maps authentication  (as well as their location being on their Website).  This goes back, again, to a COI editor flagging meaningless tags.  My vote still stands, for now.  This could all turn to dust if the subject of the Wikipedia article turns to dust tomorrow, but for now it is worth notoriety.  I vote "Keep."  FourDoorsOneExit  ( talk )  17:05, 12 June 2024  (UTC)  [ reply ] I feel compelled to note that the long paragraph above is the first edit made by FourDoorsOneExit .  It is generally a good idea to become familiar with Wikipedia editing and policies before ! voting at AfD.  These discussions are usually heavy on policy, and that takes a while to absorb.  You have now ! voted "keep" twice, and only one ! vote per user is allowed.  I also think you do not know what "COI" means here.  It is defined as "Conflict of interest  (COI)  editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. " You can see more about this at WP:COI .  The other advice I will give is WP:Civility .  You can criticize the article but it's best to assume that everyone here is trying to make WP a good quality product.  Lamona  ( talk )  21:23, 12 June 2024  (UTC)  [ reply ] I respect the feedback and am familiar with AfD as well as COI, which is why I wrote the narrative above.  I'm neither a friend, family, client etc. of the subject.   I did not vote to "Keep" twice, just affirmed my vote.   You and I stand aligned with making WP a good quality product.  FourDoorsOneExit  ( talk )  22:48, 12 June 2024  (UTC)  [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:05, 11 June 2024  (UTC)  [ reply ] Keep It is worthy, by nature, of the Virgin Orbit bankruptcy, the largest in the space industry.  He clearly is involved in the industry and I suggest "Keeping."  Are you the same editor as above?  Both edits are unsigned.  Lamona  ( talk )  14:46, 12 June 2024  (UTC)  [ reply ] Delete or merge to Virgin Orbit perhaps if there's anything more to merge than what is already covered there.  The sourcing establishes that his failed takeover bid is worth mentioning somewhere in Wikipedia but probably not that he is himself notable.  -- Here2rewrite  ( talk )  20:26, 12 June 2024  (UTC)  [ reply ] Keep Having read all votes, he meets Wikipedia's minimum threshold but I suggest the original editor clean this up a little.  172.56.240.18  ( talk )  23:14, 12 June 2024  (UTC)  [ reply ] Anyone can  (and should)  "clean up" articles on Wikipedia.  If you see something that needs doing, go ahead.  Also, determining the minimum for GNG is not based on the votes (although it's hard not to be influenced by them).  It's based on the results of searches for sources.  Everyone should do their own investigation, although sometimes someone comes through with enough found sources that we can all take advantage of their work.  So far in this discussion new sources have not be revealed, however.  Lamona ( talk ) 06:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Comment Matt is a well known investor in Cali & the article meets notoriety.  172.56.179.101 ( talk ) 00:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] "Matt"?  "notoriety"?  and two IPs in a similar range.  I hope we don't have WP:SOCKing going on here.  That would greatly complicate what otherwise would be a pretty straight-forward AFD.  Lamona ( talk ) 06:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep TiffanySwalwell ( talk ) 14:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This guy appears to be a con man and is being sued by the SEC.  The websites which collect deleted Wikipedia articles seems like a good place for this guy to be remembered.  Sanpitch ( talk ) 21:26, 17 June 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete