Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marshall Rose


 * 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 Keep. The "delete" !votes below are objecting to the current state of the article as Curriculum vitae copypasta, which is understandable but not correct (see WP:BEFORE). The "keep" !votes are (correctly) discussing the potential state of the article and their arguments have not been refuted. This is therefore a case of sofixit. WP:NAC— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  10:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)'''

Marshall Rose

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Does not seem worth a wikipedia entry to me. More like a vanity page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trudyjh (talk • contribs) 2009/07/30 02:30:33
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep &mdash; Subject is notable, but current article is just a CV-dump. Jouster (  whisper  ) 15:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not the place to post your resume. Edward321 (talk) 14:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  22:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete Looks like a posting of a resume. A well thought our article might be a different question, however. Billbowery (talk) 05:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  23:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. He is a well-known name in the internet protocol world, so I wanted to find some excuse to save this, but I couldn't find the sourcing. And the article in its present state is not worth much. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Subject meets WP:ACADEMIC.  Article meets WP:V.  I don't see any WP:BLP issues.  Since the subject has not (as far as I can tell from the history) created the article, the nominator's assertion of WP:VANITY seems unsupportable.  The article may be poorly written, but that means it needs to be improved, not deleted.  -- RoySmith (talk) 01:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 10:08, 16 August 2009 (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.