Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas DeMark


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 21:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Thomas DeMark

 * – ( View AfD View log )

There is a long list of primary sources (articles and books) published by the subject of this article, but no coverage in secondary sources aside from a CNBC interview (the Business Week link was 404 for me). Bringing it here for discussion as to whether that represents enough to establish that the subject is notable. VQuakr (talk) 03:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is clearly a piece of WP:SPAM, violating WP:AUTO and WP:COI, created by a WP:SPA.  It appears that the greatest "achievement" of this marketing "guru" is to come to Wikipedia for the sole purpose of writing a promotional article about himself.  The result woefully fails WP:BK and WP:AUTHOR. Qworty (talk) 19:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Phony sources. I've been going meticulously through the list of "articles" he put up that are supposedly by him, but few of them are.  Some are dead links, others are articles by other people that tangentially mention him without asserting notability.  I am removing these problematic "sources."  It's bad enough the guy came here with no other purpose but to write an entry about himself, but then he tries to bolster himself through non-links and by trying to take credit for business articles written by other people! Qworty (talk) 19:30, 16 May 2011 (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.