Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Marshall (writer)


 * 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 no consensus‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. The arguments regarding the notability of the article subjectan author and journalistwere effectively votes, without much in the way of reasoning. While there appears to be some consensus that the events recounted in his book might be notable, that has no bearing on whether the author is himself notable. This close is without prejudice to creating a new article, merging content, or starting another deletion/merge/move discussion for this article. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 01:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Max Marshall (writer)

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

The author does not meet WP:GNG. It is all about his one book. Macbeejack &#9742;  17:06, 22 February 2024 (UTC) Perhaps the best option would be to Rename and turn it into an article about the events described in all these articles. There doesn't seem to be a wiki article about it already, and surely it would meet notability standards. The information about Max Marshall's involvement could be a section within such an article. Vontheri (talk) 17:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Journalism, United States of America,  and Texas. Macbeejack  &#9742;  17:06, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree with this idea. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be better to draw up a quick stub on that topic and redirect this article to it? -- asilvering (talk) 00:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Relisting to solicit more opinions. Before this article could be renamed (and to what?), it must first have a consensus to Keep. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article can be improved or moved, but those are not reasons for AfD. Bearian (talk) 15:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * I propose keep and rename to "College of Charleston drug trafficking scandal", "College of Charleston drug trafficking ring", "Kappa Alpha fraternity Drug trafficking ring at the college of Charleston", "Kappa Alpha fraternity at the College of Charleston Xanax scandal" or some similar name. I have no strong opinion on the specific name chosen, just as long as it accurately describes what happened.
 * The relevant portions of the article as it currently exists can be kept, and work can be done to integrate the countless sources for references into the article. I'm sure non-internet sources exist, too, such as newspapers. Deleting the article would be deleting prose and references that would be useful for those working on the renamed article and thus counterproductive. It would be starting from scratch when the start has already been started. Vontheri (talk) 02:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. Doesn't look like Marshall is notable, though the book may be and the events described in the book are. Tacyarg (talk) 12:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * If there is a way to create a new article with a title something like the names I proposed above and then integrate the section among the bros from this article into the new article, along with a brief paragraph or two summarizing anything from the rest of the article that is relevant, then I would be fine with that as well. It seems to me like most people agree that the events described in the book written by Max Marshall are notable, even if the person Max Marshall is not notable enough for an article. So as long as the current article isn't destroyed such that anyone working to contribute to the new article has that information in the current article accessible to them as a starting point, then I would personally also find an approach like that acceptable.
 * I'm not an expert in all the inner workings of wikipedia and all the different options that are available for a scenario like this, (my primary reason for being on wikipedia is to write content for articles; involving in discussions is secondary for me) but hopefully it is clear what my intent is for what I personally think should be done, and assuming others agree with me, perhaps someone else who is more an expert of inner workings of wikipedia can suggest the most proper solution from a technical standpoint. Vontheri (talk) 13:25, 15 March 2024 (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.