Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Jenkins (fitness trainer)


 * 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. Daniel (talk) 02:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Mark Jenkins (fitness trainer)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Borderline WP:G11 profile of a personal trainer. Not seeing sufficient coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:BASIC. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:11, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Doesn't look like an encyclopedia article. I.hate.spam.mail.here (talk) 04:45, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:11, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:11, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:11, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: the article was created by "Helioprmedia"... unsurprisingly, Mark Jenkins is one of Helio PR's clients. Richard3120 (talk) 13:11, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: Obviously paid-for spam, probably in G11 territory.  Java Hurricane  15:30, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Article is entirely promotional as is right now, and like Richard3120 pointed out, it was created by a PR company editor. RoseCherry64 (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete very little actual reliable sourcing. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:58, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - If admins determine that the article is paid promotion and a conflict of interest, I suppose it can be deleted for those reasons. But I am compelled to point out that Jenkins has been profiled in some solid sources, such as Essence, Esquire , and Insider , among others. Those are already in the article and it could be salvageable, but I agree that the current version is shamelessly promotional. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 22:11, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Essence looks like covert advertising, Esquire looks like a combo of covert advertising and a WP:INTERVIEW, and same seems true of Insider (see also WP:BUSINESSINSIDER). More fundamentally, none of these are really about Jenkins as a person and (bracketing the quality issues for the moment) couldn't be used to write a substantial article about him. The article would be "Mark Jenkins recommends the following tips for an hourglass figure", which is an article about fitness that fails WP:MEDRS and not a biography about Mark Jenkins. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:14, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment if any editors !voting Keep here are willing to turn this article from a promotional piece into something encyclopaedic, I'd opt to keep it. LondonIP (talk) 19:14, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Draftify I think with some improvements it should be kept, so if you draftify, I can work on improvement to remove promotional language and submit to AFC for another look. "Essense" and "Esquire" articles are from notable publications. These articles --> bodybuilidng.com, bestoftoday.com are partly interview, but also partly commentary from the writer and can be used. Chelokabob (talk) 19:43, 29 November 2021 (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.