Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marc Lobliner


 * 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. Consensus herein is for deletion. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 21:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Marc Lobliner

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unreliable and PR sources only; apparently a promotional article. Books are claimed, but none of them is even in Worldcat.  DGG ( talk ) 17:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi and thank you for your interest in the article; I've cited several magazines that are established publications in regards to bodybuilding such as Muscle And Fitness and Bodybuilding.com, can you please advise on how to make the article better? I do not understand what you mean by "Promotional Article"? As for the books, you are correct they are books that were distributed digitally only, should I go ahead and edit those out? Cada mori (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ref 2 is an author blurb he wrote himself in the first person, Ref. 3 is an advertisement for his program, complete with product listings,  Ref 4 is  a list of results that does not mention him, Ref. 5 is a publicity blurb. Ref 1. is the only even conceivably usable source at all, but it's an interview where he says whatever he wants to, which is straight PR.    The refs considered all in all are promotional refs that prove this a promotional article. DGG ( talk ) 03:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi : The notability of the subject needs to be demonstrated through the provision of independent, third-party reliable sources that provide significant coverage. Specific criteria can be reviewed at WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Please feel free to list such sources here for consideration by Wikipedia editors. Thanks. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 04:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon  00:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Delete. Unvarnished WP:ADMASQ. Pax 21:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 01:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Effort put into trying to understand GNG, but unfortunately, the quality of the sources is lacking. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 01:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - I wonder whether it was really worth a second relisting. No reliable sources = no sources. Tigraan (talk) 11:11, 27 March 2015 (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.