Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James D. Marks


 * 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

James D. Marks

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The website he founded might be notable, but I see nothing else -- certainly not the patents--for which there is no evidence of commercial use.  DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets GNG, I was reading this over to see why this reasonably well-sourced article wasn't good enough, and I'm finding it hard to see where more sources are needed. I'll look again to see if there are missing sections in his bio that can be added but i feel there is enough here presently. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Comment The weird thing I'm getting is that TheBody.com (redlink) appears more notable than Marks. Google's telling me James D Marks is far too common a name.  But what's missing?  Any notable secondary sources (a secondary school newspaper isn't notable - The Phillipian) profiling the man himself.  Everything's either primary (donor, board he sits on), sketchy about his company (Body Health Resources Corporation), or just a name and very little else.  He looks as if he really ought to be over the threshold, especially with that reference list, but there's nothing in there that combines (a) significant coverage, (b) reliable sources, and (c) independent of the subject - at best it's pick two per source.  One profile of him in a decent sized newspaper?  It's an article that's so frustratingly close to passing wp:GNG that I believe there must be something out there if someone can find it.  (So annoyingly close that I'm very tempted to suggest keeping under wp:IAR )  Neonchameleon (talk) 02:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the issue is the timing of the rise of the Internet vs. the decline in newspapers, especially ones that catered to gays and people with AIDS. I have no problem believing that AIDS Education Global Information System would have quite a few documents on him, but I've not been able to complete a search on them yet. Likewise LGBT magazines certainly profiled him, as would the handful of AIDS magazines, but I'm not getting any of those publications when I search. I think as well he has gone by just Jim. Sportfan5000 (talk) 05:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep seems well sourced and relevant enough, just needs better inward linking. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 17:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Do references 12-17 (patent office and ExpertViewpoint) qualify as WP:OR given they're primary sources? Daniel (talk) 11:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No, they are documenting facts, like someone's birthdate. It's how the information is used that gets to original research, As long as we are just stating facts that are evident from the material. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep an article on this individual and the website he founded seems well worth including. Notability is established based on substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. These chicken and egg arguments about whether the product or creator are notable seems silly. No problem covering both in one article. Problem solved. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.