Talk:Marianne and Mark

==Notice: This article lacks WP:A to establish == In my opinion, this article either lacks sufficient Attribution that it satisfies the Notability criteria for, or it may violate the Conflict of interest guideline, or perhaps it is a Copyright violation.

Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources to verify any claims of notability. Even though the lack of reliable source attribution in an article is not grounds for deletion in itself, an article with absolutely no sources (or only external links to unreliable ones) suggests to some editors that multiple reliable sources may not, in fact, exist.

Although I am considering tagging this article for deletion according to the Deletion policy, I am nonetheless willing to assist User:, and other recent contributors to this article, to make constructive improvements to it ... I do not have time to examine this article in depth at the moment, and it may improve over time, in which case this warning was premature.

Please respond on this Discussion page, instead of on my Talk page, in order to avoid fragmenting the conversation.—Triwbe (talk) 11:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Category:Flagged articles
I have removed the  from the message above . it was flagged at least two months ago by Some Other Editor, but the current version looks OK to me. Avic enna sis @ 06:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Storr's conference paper
Not having read the book, I'm not going to do any more work on the article myself. From the Storr conference paper that I added, there's also this comment that looks interesting (p. 37): "You know when Marrianne rides on the back of Alan's cycle? Well, that for me is describing a sexual experience for the young and this is the way I think one can do it. Whether they recognize it as that or not I don't know." But I'll leave that to someone who's read the book. N p holmes (talk) 11:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Trivia
The Trivia section that has been added by multiple anonymous IPs is completely unsourced. And not really important to the subject of the article. LizardJr8 (talk) 22:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, and presumably so does . Would anyone in favor of the trivia please explain why the content is verifiable and due in this article? Without explanation, I think it's fair to assume consensus against inclusion of the unsourced trivia. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I say lock the page, this person is not going to explain themselves on this, they would have done so already, and their not going to stop. User Wheresthatpenguin started this back in June of 2019‎ and tried again this year. HARDACAndroid (talk) 03:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I requested semi-protection. It's also helpful to have documented consensus to point to when reverting. Thanks for showing up. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:58, 5 June 2021 (UTC)