Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Brooks (internet dating/social networking expert)


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 01:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Mark Brooks (internet dating/social networking expert)
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Despite the long list of "media mentions", I am dubious about this guy's notability. I suspect it is self-promotional. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. The articles don't seem to address the subject himself. The most we could source to them is "Mark Brooks runs the popular online dating industry website Online Personals Watch", which wouldn't be a particularly interesting article. JulesH (talk) 09:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete this non-notable, self-promoting vanity article immediately. --MrShamrock (talk) 09:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't delete. How is he not notable?  When the press wants an expert on either social networking or internet dating, they call him.  Hence the notations from The New York Times, Chicago Tribune.  He also heads up the Internet Dating & Social Networking Conferences and is currently the President of the Internet Dating Executive Alliance.  This seems more notable than the other Mark Brooks that draws comic books and has a page on here. Blm0303 (talk)
 * He isn't notable because nobody has ever written about him, rather than simply quoting him as an expert on a particular subject. See the notability guidelines at WP:BIO and particularly WP:N for an explanation of why this is necessary.  Mark Brooks (comics) may or may not be notable, depending on what has been written about him.  If somebody nominates his article for deletion, we'll end up looking to find out.  See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. JulesH (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I am extremely skeptical about articles for this sort of professional notability, but I think the references here are actually sufficient. A very wide range of publications--even the Christian Science Monitor, consider him an expert. the articles should be written around this, not about his miscellaneous non-notable earlier positions. DGG (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You suggest that the article should be sourced to his quotes to the media. But the result would be an article that is either (1) a resume for Brooks, not a biography of him, or (2) a POV fork of Internet dating solely presenting Brooks' views on the subject. Evidence that Brooks is a respected expert is a good argument for why his views should be presented at Internet dating, but a bad argument for why Brooks himself warrants an article. Read JulesH's comment again, right above yours, for more on why expertise is not notability. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * that was not exactly what I meant, it should be sourced by the articles written by other people, citing the remarks of the named journalists in many notable publications, that he is an expert. DGG (talk) 04:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a resume. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Would including a list of people he has interviewed help? I have a list of CEO's from both the internet dating community and the social networking community that he has interviewed. They think he is notable enough to give their time. He's even interviewed Steve Wozniak from apple (http://www.socialnetworkingwatch.com/2008/08/steve-wozniak-.html).Blm0303 (talk)
 * Again, that sort of info would nicely enhance Brooks' personal resume, but Wikipedia isn't really the place for that. Even if the people he interviewed consider him "notable" in some sense, that is not what is meant by notability. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 23:54, 16 January 2009 (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.