Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James D. Marks (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

James D. Marks
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:BIO. No effective referencing. Its all company news. Fails WP:SIGCOV.  scope_creep Talk  17:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 18:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This is one of several articles claimed by "Wikiprofessionals Inc." to have been created by it for paying customers. It was created in 2012 by User:Danielj55, whose only edits appear to revolve around the creation of this article, and making links to it. BD2412  T 18:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Good info. My hope is that editors look at this article and determine if the person is notable without dismissing the article based on an apparent COI. I have to investigate, however based on his patents alone...I think we need to look at him with fresh eyes. Lightburst (talk) 18:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It would appear from the articles' edit history that you already caught the mistake yourself, but just to emphasize for those participating in this discussion, there is a second individual with the exact same name, and the various research papers and patents involving bio-research that come up with searches are actually from that individual, not the subjects of this article. Rorshacma (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong delete people are not supposed to pay their way into having a Wikipedia article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The subject meets WP:GNG. I am starting to add the subject's many patents in a chart. Wikipedia is better with an article about the subject. Lightburst (talk) 01:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Have you read WP:PATENTS? Tht section is liable to be deleted as lacking independent RSes. More germane to this discussion, it does nothing to amplify notability. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sadly whenever there is a suspected COI we have editors who demand deletion. As if notability is automatically lost if COI exists. I do not think this person's only notability stems from his patents. However I am not sure I should spend more time on this subject since the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is a big NO! Cheers Lightburst (talk) 02:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. His claimed notability appears to be his leadership of TheBody.com. This sounds like a very worthwhile website, but it lacks an article here. If it had one, and if this were unable to accommodate worthwhile material about Marks, then Marks might warrant an article of his own. But as it is, no. -- Hoary (talk) 01:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:BIO, fails WP:SIGCOV. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:09, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Subject passes WP:ANYBIO#2 Lightburst (talk) 02:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Spammy article with no clear evidence that Mr Marks is notable created by a COI account. Nick-D (talk) 06:09, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - Discounting the obvious non-notability generating sources (the patents, profile pages, etc), what's left are a bunch of press releases, and some coverage from the school paper of the high school that he attended, and then spoke at once. The sources are also a bit misleading, as it seems that in at least one case, the same press release is being used as two separate sources as they were published on multiple sites, to bloat the reflist.  Note that there is another James D. Marks, a M.D. Ph.D., who appears to be considerably more notable than this individual, and pretty much all actual results in reliable sources are actually on the doctor.  There were some arguments in the prior AFD that the website he founded and ran until its sale is notable, and thus this individual is as well.  However, not only does this run counter to WP:NOTINHERITED, but I'm not finding a whole lot of evidence that the website would pass the WP:GNG itself, anyway.  Rorshacma (talk) 21:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete due to lack of reliable independent secondary sources about the subject. Guy (help!) 10:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - As the article seem to be having references from Paid publications a lot like This mostly PR works. as the site PR newswire is a self publishing website not notable  Dtt1 Talk  12:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Most of the article is not about him but about his website, and what's about him is cobbled from mentions in passing and even primary sources like the patent office submissions. Seems to fail WP:NBIO. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:01, 17 July 2020 (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.