Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Nestmann


 * 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 Speedy delete per WP:CSD. –Grondemar 18:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Mark Nestmann

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I find no evidence of coverage to meet WP:GNG, and nothing for WP:BIO, nor for The Lifeboat Strategy nor for The Nestmann Group. Largoplazo (talk) 21:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, no reliable sources cited, and article's originator appears to be related to the subject in some way.  PK T (alk)  22:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agreed, no reliable sources. Jeff Quinn (talk) 23:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:BIO and agreed that writer seems to be related. Paste  Let’s have a chat. 14:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I'm new to this, so I don't know precisely how to add my comments here, which Laroplazo requested. You all state there are no references in the article, yet there used to be. According to the History, Chrissymad removed just about all the external links that supported the article. I do not understand why they were removed, since you all seem to want them to prove Notability. I thank you in advance if someone could explain all this to me. I realize it takes your time, but you're requiring sources but then remove them when they were originally included. Dave Clingman for The Nestmann Group (and, yes, I am related to the subject) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NestmannG (talk • contribs) 22:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It looks like Chrissymad removed links leading to works by Mark Nestmann, if I'm not mistaken. A Wikipedia article can list a bibliography, but it shouldn't be treated as a portal that leads people directly to a person's works, and especially not to sales links like Amazon. An addition, there shouldn't be external links within the content of an article; footnoted references are used. There are also guidelines for external links that may be listed at the end of an article in addition to references.
 * As for notability, works produced by a person don't demonstrate the person's notability, even taking into account what they were published in. Sources that demonstrate notability are reliable, independent, secondary sources about the person. The piece on the Washington Post website is in one person's blog post, without the full weight of reliability ascribed to Post articles that have been through the editorial process. It doesn't qualify as a reliable source. Largoplazo (talk) 22:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete. This page makes me angry, for several reasons. Even if everything stated as if true in the article, this person still fails notability as we define it. In fact, by stating such things as he runs a "boutique" firm, he falls into the category of run of the mill business person and lawyer, one of a crowd of millions. As an attorney, I've represented several famous people, including 1, a film producer who had his short at Cannes and also happens to be my domestic partner, 2, was pro bono counsel to several soon-to-be-notable musicians, 3, I am executor-attorney for the estate of the father of a very famous casting director who's worked with Jake Gyllenhall and Natalie Portman, 4, I was pen pals with Ralph Alpher, and 5. pro bono attorney for the "small estate" of a notable Hugh Carey-administration official who fell on hard times. None of that makes me notable. Who one represents or knows or is related to does not matter for notability. Unless a lawyer represents an extraordinary famous person, such as being counsel the President of the United States or an infamous criminal, they are just not notable in my book nor in our book. Lawyers are notable for what they do, what service they perform for the bar, for their academic expertise, and what the rights - not just the money - they win for other people. The whole page is one long boastful advertisement for profit. Any lawyer can do that! Any lawyer should do that! That gets us to my most serious problem with people who post their resumes on our encyclopedia. Wikiepdia is a charity, not some ordinary for-profit social media place. We could lose our 501(c)(3) status. Hostelling International lost its charity status in Canada because of the way it was just renting beds and not doing any social good -- let that be a warning to us editors. All of the work we've done for the past ten years would go right down the toilet if we continue to allow wealthy people to post their c.v.s here in our encyclopedia. So, I am very angry. If I were still a sysop I would salt this one, and that is exactly what I suggest we do with this page. Bearian (talk) 12:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

.

Thank you both for explaining things so clearly. I accept the deletion of the page. Is there something I need to do for this, or will you guys take care of it? Thanks again. Dave Clingman for The Nestmann Group


 * 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.