Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perry Marshall


 * 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. North America1000 03:21, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Perry Marshall

 * – ( View AfD View log )

WP:NOTE. Per WP:BIO, specifically, the basic criterion is "multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The closest I've seen of independent content mentioning him is this, and I am mildly doubtful as to whether it meets the 'intellectually independent' criterion. For this reason, I believe the case for his notability is not made out, and consequently, his entry should be deleted. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC) -- Text added to top on AfDer's behalf -- Tautomers (T C) 23:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:32, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:32, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:32, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment With respect, you are mistaken: see my response below, and the links in my comment on the article's Talk page. DaveApter (talk) 15:04, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

*Speedy keep No real rationale for deletion has been given. What does WP:N mean? It meets it? It doesn't?  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 19:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Just pinging you now that a rationale has been added. PK650 (talk) 23:10, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks PK. I've struck-through my comment, as I have no view either way, as I'm not familar with the topic area itself. Thanks again.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 06:48, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * -- Tautomers (T C) 23:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Procedural keep Please state a broader reason for deletion. Like Tautomers I feel the subject is proper for a deletion discussion as yet another low-N 'marketing expert...but I also bring in The Bible!' huckster, but there needs to be more in the rationale for deletion.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 23:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Thanks, Ari; I had a feeling it was likely just shorthand or some kind of editing issue, so I feel your reasoning is proper. I don't feel like the subject meets N in any broad manner, and the sourcing isn't there at all in the article.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 02:40, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I am ordinarily a Wikidata guy, and consequently, my brain got stuck in Wikidata shorthand. I meant, of course, WP:NOTE. Per WP:BIO, specifically, the basic criterion is "multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The closest I've seen of independent content mentioning him is this, and I am mildly doubtful as to whether it meets the 'intellectually independent' criterion. For this reason, I believe the case for his notability is not made out, and consequently, his entry should be deleted. I hope that clarifies my AfD. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 23:34, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment no worries! I added the text to the top on your behalf so it's easy for people to see. If I messed it up or you'd like to re-word it feel free. -- Tautomers (T C) 23:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. Starter note, it seems the account that made this page has been indefinitely blocked for being an advertisement account. To my surprise he actually has a google scholar profile, though I think it's got crossover from stuff he hasn't done. Nevertheless, he does have some citations on what he's done. He's not a PROF though so he shouldn't be measured through those metrics (and wouldn't meet them anyway). I don't see these citations as notable though, and the works themselves do not appear notable in outside sources. I wasn't able to find many meaningful secondary sources. There is one I found in local news, but it's really just an exerpt from one of his books and I wouldn't count it. Entreprenur so that source can't really be used to support him. It seems like any notability he has is within a small bubble, and even that seems limited. As such I don't see him passing WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR. -- Tautomers (T C) 23:57, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Or at least give it a month to see whether editors can knock this article (which is admittedly in a deplorable state at the moment) into shape. There is absolutely no doubt about Marshall's notability. He has at least eight books released by reputable publishers over a period of 17 years, all selling strongly and continuously in print. Articles featuring him and his work have been published in, Inc, the Harvard Business Review, the Financial Times, Nature, and the IEEE Spectrum magazine. A paper he wrote was published in the Harvard Business Review's Italian Edition. I will put a note with more detail on the article's Talk page and make a start on improving the article in the next few days. DaveApter (talk) 08:44, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Could you please strike out Forbes (sites) here, due to your subsequent conclusion that it is not a RS? ☆ Bri (talk) 02:15, 10 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Allow more time - Perry Marshall's large number of publications shows that this page has potential. More time is needed to demonstrate their significance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiogenic (talk • contribs) 14:28, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If you think he is actually notable, please say why, taking heed that large numbers associated with the subject are by themselves not persuasive. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Relist - Surprised no one has asked {{Bri, DGG, or Letters and Numbers to weigh in, given their extensive editing history on this page 174.20.124.25 (talk) 18:14, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Your ping was busted but the article is on my watchlist. I looked at some of the sources like IEEE Spectrum and I'm not sure if he’s weakly notable for involvement in intelligent design. However, am inclined to stay out of further investment in this, in the spirit of WP:BOGO. As a closing comment from me, two !voters have opined that more time could help. The article has been around since 2013, maybe another decade will help? Probably not. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:28, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

{{clear}}
 * Comment The article in its present form is barely a stub. I have commented on the Talk page outlining edits I plan over the next few days which will establish his notability beyond doubt. DaveApter (talk) 10:47, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep DGG and Bri did a lot to tighten this article, mostly by subtraction. However, there are some possibly notable materials that have not been reflected in this article, relating to some of Marshall's activities. For example, this source references Marshall's Evolution 2.0 book. In addition, a researcher with no competing interests mentions how the prize Marshall initiated is the largest basic research science prize in history. Copywriter12 (talk) 19:26, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, but still needs rewriting. The article continues to be POV, as I understand it  The article accepts his own statements about the meaning of his theory, but though his own view does show what he is trying to say, it does not show what it actually means. Guessing from the article, because I have not read his book, he is confused between "the hypothesis that variation arises from random DNA copying errors" and   "  the hypothesis that variation arises ONLY from random DNA copying errors" (Personally, speaking as a biologist who also knows some IT): the various epigenetic process are included as part of Darwinian evolution;  Darwin hadn't the least idea of the actual mechanism of genetic transmission, as neither DNA nor chromosomes had yet been discovered. The concept of Darwinism is not random variation as copying errors followed by natural selection, but random variation regardless of mechanism, followed by natural selection. The concept that the genetic code cannot have evolved is unlikely, given  what we now know about those surviving organisms having early variants of it.     But this is not the place to argue the science or absence of it. . We don't get rid of heterodox views by calling their proponents non-notable.   He's attracted enough attention for notability .  DGG ( talk ) 05:28, 13 July 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.