Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark D. Yates


 * 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. j⚛e deckertalk 03:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Mark D. Yates

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG, recreation of a earlier deleted promo piece. But this one is not much better, mostly sourced on related sources (his own book, his own Linkedin-publications etc.) The Banner talk 13:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * comment I don't see any notability here, but I don't follow military articles. It seems to be mostly about a single event that it was decided he had not participated in. In any case, I merged and imiproved the existing references. LaMona (talk) 23:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 17:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt. No evidence of notability beyond the single court case. See BLP1E. Article is highly promotional. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nomination, subject lacks "significant coverage" in WP:RS per the WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 21:20, 15 November 2014 (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.