Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sally 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. North America1000 10:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Sally Marks

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article is about Sally Marks, and she doesn't want to be in Wikipedia. I can provide her e-mail address, if necessary. She'd like to delete her page in the French Wikipedia, as well as the English page. She e-mailed me, "Please ensure that the entry is removed immediately.... Being on Wikipedia is professionally damaging, besides which the piece is pretty bad and very incomplete. Definitely not up to Wikipedia standards." Jim47658 (talk) 13:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2016 November 30.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 13:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I can't see what's damaging about this rather innocuous stub -- apparently just being in Wikipedia is damaging, which will be news to all the non-notable academics who try to worm their way in -- but surely Prof. Marks is minor enough that WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE applies rather perfectly. Delete on that basis. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. The subject arguably fails WP:PROF and I see no reason we should deny this request. It does not appear that fr-wiki has the same policy but a Francophone could request deletion on her behalf there. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 16:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, per reasoning above; per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and WP:PROF. Kierzek (talk) 17:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete according to subject's request, but evidence is needed that request is genuine. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC).
 * Have her e-mail WP:OTRS? Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 22:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I do not appreciate attempts to OUT me. Such communication should be done via WP:OTRS. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC).


 * I'm not trying to OUT anyone, and I have no idea what's meant by WP:OTRS. I'm just trying to demonstrate that this is an honest effort to delete a Wikipedia page about a person who doesn't want to be on Wikipedia. This is not some sort of hoax or imposter or vandal. User:Jim47658 11:33, 02 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You may find that your edits on Wikipedia are received better if you learn about its procedures first. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC).


 * Delete does not pass the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment -- This article is essentially a list of her publications, which makes a bad article. If it is complete, 2 books and about 15 articles might bring her close to notability.  I am accordingly neutral.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:27, 4 December 2016 (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.