Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark S. Guralnick


 * 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. Euryalus (talk) 06:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Mark S. Guralnick

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Highly promotional bio with indication of notability per WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR. Recently speedied db-G11, and it's only just this side of G11 now. He's a lawyer, and he's written some books: neither automatically confers notability. Sources are all WP:Primary, with no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Prod contested by anonymous editor. OnionRing (talk) 15:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 15:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 15:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 15:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, in addition article reads a bit too promotional for me. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: Does not meet WP:GNG. Being a lawyer and an author does not automatically make him notable. ubiquity (talk) 14:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete If the book was as widely important as suggested it would get coverage beyond one minor mention in a state level oil industry publication. So we can not even establish notability for his law book on facking. Establishing that he is notable for writing it, which seems to be the goal of the article would require us to have either widespread quoting from him on fracking in publications, or his work being quoted enough by others to show he is a leading expert on law as it relates to fracking. We do not have these, and until we do we have no reason to think he is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete There are faint whiffs of notability, but the coverage doesn't support a claim. The article as it exists comes off a bit promotional. It might be possible to improve the sourcing to support the claim, but I haven't found anything that would meet the standard. Alansohn (talk) 18:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and Salt temporarily at best (although locking entirely would be best as it may simply be restarted once the salt ends); my searches and examinations have found nothing actually better and, with there being nothing else actually minimally convincing, delete is best. SwisterTwister   talk  00:35, 13 July 2016 (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.