Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rodney Marks


 * 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.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Rodney Marks

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:ENT. I found no significant coverage for him. note there is an Australian astrophysicist of the same name. Rodney Marks (astrophysicist). A number of sources merely confirm what universities he attended. LibStar (talk) 08:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 10:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 10:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. The references in the article, if each exists and is more than a passing mention, are enough to satisfy WP:GNG. I'd certainly rather see the references but, per WP:AGF and the limited insight of the articles' titles, I;m happy to work on the assumption that they're sufficient. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 14:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF does not apply to the quality of the references. LibStar (talk) 23:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * How do you mean? To clarify, I'm assuming that the editor who added the references acted in good faith and didn't intend to deceive or to exaggerate the level of coverage. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 06:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

As cited in the article, the references are mostly small mentions and do not satify WP:ENT. there are no indepth reviews on his work, or coverage in major press about his achievements. I'm judging on what's in the article. you can't WP:AGF on the existence of information you can't see in the article. LibStar (talk) 07:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Where in the article is it indicated that the references are "small mentions"?
 * References aren't required to satisfy notability guidelines, articles are.
 * The Bulletin, The Sunday Telegraph and The Australian Financial Review are "major press", though so far as I know no Wikipedia policies or guidelines distinguish between "major" or "minor" publications.
 * Basing one's !vote exclusively "on what's in the article" would require one to never read an article's references, which seems a strange way to judge an article's notability. See also WP:NOTCLEANUP. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 14:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar   &middot;   &middot;  22:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete and allow recreation. The current article has major problems that WP:TNT might best be used to fix but he is notable. It was created as an unsourced biased puff piece and still reads like that. Refs were thrown in seemingly at random to make it looked well sourced. Ref 4 (Fin Review) does not verify the sentence it follows, it makes no mention of Marks education. With that deception can we trust the rest of the article? Below is some of the available refs which add up to enough coverage to start a new article with. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't understand Duffbeerforme's argument. If he's notable, then WP:FIXIT. Bondegezou (talk) 10:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Let me be clearer, WP:TNT is merely an essay. WP:FIXIT is a guideline, and WP:PRESERVE is policy. Bondegezou (talk) 11:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Re: so fix it. I think the best way to fix it is to start again. Re: preserve. "Preserve appropriate content". A deceptively sourced promotional BLP is not appropriate content. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete I think duffbeerforme says it best when he says 'A deceptively sourced promotional BLP is not appropriate content'.
 * 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.