Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Marting


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 23:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Robert Marting

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

Reason the page should be deleted violates WP:V, does not meet WP:BIO SuperEdit04 (talk) 06:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. His only assertion of notability is his video series, for which the only sources are his personal website and...his video series. Google seems to just turn up a bunch of ads. Agreed, isn't a notable person. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Hadn't found those magazine covers. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. He has supposedly "been featured in many of the world's top fitness magazines"; I'm having trouble finding reliable source documentation of that, but I think two magazine covers  are enough to establish notability even if those numerous feature articles on him never surface.  The article needs work, but that's not a reason for deletion.   Baileypalblue (talk) 07:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm questioning the importance of appearing on magazine covers, at least in this context. If a subject is on a cover as a feature of that month's content, that would seem to confer notability. But with all due respect, in this context subject is fundamentally an unnamed model. Trying to avoid a slippery slope, if modeling for a cover confers notability, that would infer inclusion for all cover models of magazines, and then arguably all television commercial actors. 74.69.39.11 (talk) 11:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you know if he was only a cover model or could there be associated articles in the magazines? →Wordbuilder (talk) 13:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Fair question. I don't know, but my understanding of the of the rationale used was that he was on the cover. If I may use Prevention magazine as an example. There are a lot of cover models here, but only in a few cases are the models notable (the only one I saw was a Bollywood actress). When the cover model was notable, there was an article in the magazine. The argument for this subject, as I understand it, is he was on these covers. Prior to that, it was indicated that there is no evidence of an article. Given the high level of commercialism on the internet, and that the subject sells DVD's, it is reasonable to assume that if there was an on-line article available, it would be used to sell DVD's. Going back to the covers, though, if you go to this list, you will see he is identified as a cover model. There are a lot of cover models listed there. Under the above rationale, every one of them would deserve an article here, even if there is no article in the magazine.


 * I believe that Mr. Marting's accomplishments are commendable. He is obviously in excellent shape and appears to have achieved some business success in this field. But there is a difference between being commendable and being notable. If articles turn up, or if his workout video's are shown to be notable, then by all means the article is deserving. If you notice, my remarks were prefaced by comment, I am attempting to provide an opinion on a point of order without providing an opinion on the article's worthiness (though I suppose this comment makes my thoughts clear). I am actually an inclusionist and generally only come down on the side of helping articles stay in.
 * 74.69.39.11 (talk) 17:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:04, 25 March 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.