Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Budman


 * 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. Notability is not established based on the discussion. Alex ShihTalk 08:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Mark Budman

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

It's hard to understand. Is he writer, engineer or interpreter? From what I see the notability is quite edgy. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC) He is all three. A polymath. In order of importance: writer, engineer and interpreter. Who was Michelangelo? Painter, sculptor or scientist? I know, I know. Budman is not Michelangelo, so I can remove the references to anything other than the writer. User:RightOnTarget — User:RightOnTarget (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  Jupitus Smart  16:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric  05:53, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

This article was immediately considered for deletion the date the first and incomplete draft was created, and before the article was even submitted. The second comment had to do with the ambiguity: who is Mark? A writer or inventor or interpreter? Why being a polymath is a subject for deletion? Yet I removed the mentioning of the interpreting and can remove the mentioning of the inventor if necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RightOnTarget (talk • contribs) 16:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 03:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete the only possible claim of notability I see is WP:NAUTHOR and he clearly doesn't meet that guideline. The only news-style coverage I find of him is trivial mentions of him in the context of his books, and none of them appear to be notable. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:50, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

The article clearly has references to interviews with Mark. How can multiple interviews be clearly labeled as "trivial mentions of him in the context of his books?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by RightOnTarget (talk • contribs) 14:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: 3rd.
 * Keep. Not sure about meeting WP:AUTHOR but probably meets WP:BASIC, see these articles I found that talk both about his writing and one of his patents:     . Regards  So  Why  09:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write)  11:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete . Nice try, but those are all fleeting mentions. No in-depth coverage and many are basically repeats of each other. There is a false assumption on Wikipedia that a plethora of fleeting mentions = notability. It doesn't. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep . It looks like théâtre de l'absurde. Everyone is ignoring the facts and repeats the same general arguments about triviality at large. Yes, the following is true "There is a false assumption on Wikipedia that a plethora of fleeting mentions = notability." But because a generality is true, it doesn't mean that this particular case falls under this generality. Did anyone read the multiple interviews with Mark in the article? An interview with an author is not casual mentions.

Some additional information:

On WP:BASIC: (NY Times among them):

  

On WP:NAUTHOR   

(User RightonTarget) 22 August 2017 (UTC), edited on 24 August 2017
 * Delete all of the mentions above provided by SoWhy are mainly from one local paper, which per WP:N only counts as one source. Those from other papers are virtually identical in both content and layout, meaning that they aren't intellectually independent from one another. As such, we don't have coverage in sourcing as would be expected under the general guideline in N or under a subject specific guideline. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. If you do a search with Google WP:AUTHOR probably meets WP:BASIC IMHO but article could be improved. --ClrView (talk) 17:45, 26 August 2017 (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.