Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Marlon

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Marlon[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NPOL fail as a city council candidate. Article is WP:REFBOMBed with non-independent sources and passing mentions and is a probably a case of WP:PROMO. GPL93 (talk) 23:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 23:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 23:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn - All sourcing used is independent and 3rd party publications. Many sources so as to prove notibility to make sure Wikipedia standards are met. Added information on losing election (had not kept up with election which resulted in lack of update). JKantorJourno Jkantorjourno (talk) 01:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jkantorjourno I find it odd that someone trying to establish the notability of the subject wouldn't use the two reliable sources (which still don't establish notability) that came up first when I conducted a WP:BEFORE search, which are "As client deaths prompt lawsuits, rehab exec quits job to run for LV Council" and "Ex-wife, arrest report from 2012 contradict LV Council candidate’s account". I am going to ask, as I did on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rana Gujral, that you disclose any professional or personal connection to either subject per WP:COI given the promotional-sounding nature of both articles and the fact that you have made little or no edits that aren't related to the two articles. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:50, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too much of the referencing here is primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as government meeting minutes and the self-published websites of organizations he's directly affiliated with — but the stuff that's actual media coverage is not adding up to passage of WP:GNG, as it's exclusively local to his own hometown, and is still split between sources that briefly namecheck his existence as a giver of soundbite in articles that aren't about him, and coverage that is about him but exists in a context, like losing a city council election, that is not notable in its own right either. GNG is not a matter of "anybody who can show that their name has made it into any newspaper two or more times is automatically guaranteed a Wikipedia article" — GNG also tests for the depth of how substantively any source is or isn't about him, the geographic range of how widely he's getting covered, and the context of what he's getting covered for, and none of this clears those bars. Bearcat (talk) 16:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GPL93 In what scenario do either of those articles provide information/sourcing that is relevant to the objective writing standards of wikipedia? I have no affiliation with either page that i've created, and began working with wikipedia through Wikiwomen organization. I chose these two subjects because they're notable enough to create my first pages but not so notable that they've 1) already been created or 2) might create a scenario in which I don't have the ability to create such a large page. I have two jobs so my ability to go in and edit continuously with updated information and/or edit multiple other pages is not something that is a priority - it is hard to try and find information not already there and/or find information that needs fixed. I see now devoting much more of my time should have been a priority or else editors don't want your participation in the encyclopedia. Bearcat Exactly, he is a local notable figure. Nowhere in Wikiguidelines does it say that anyone with a wikipage must have global representation in order to be considered notable. If this was the case, you need to delete far more pages. Local notability still warrants a page. Jkantorjourno Jkantorjourno (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that the executive of addiction recovery centers stepping down from his position shortly after client deaths is incredibly pertinent to the subject and it would be beneath Wikipedia's standards to leave it out. Controversies, public criticism, and legal/criminal issues are often included in articles. Wikipedia's standards are to present the facts about subjects as they appear, we include the good and the bad. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While it is not entirely impossible for people of local notability to get into Wikipedia, the bar that a person of purely local notability has to clear to be notable enough for a Wikipedia article is considerably higher than it is for people of obviously nationalized or internationalized notability. Just think of the kinds of people we would have to keep articles about if just showing a couple of pieces of purely local coverage was all it took to get a person into Wikipedia: every city councillor on earth; every mayor of a no-horse village with a population of 10; everybody who ever opened a small retail boutique or a cheese shop or a craft brewery; everybody who was ever president of an elementary school parent-teacher association or a library board or a low-income housing cooperative; every school board trustee; every teenager who ever had two pieces of human interest coverage about them trying out for a high school football team despite having less or more than the usual number of toes; winners of high school battle of the bands or poetry contests; my mother's neighbour who once got into the local papers for finding a stray pig in her front yard; and me. So the bar that a person has to clear to get into Wikipedia is not just that a couple of pieces of local media coverage happen to exist — the bar a person has to clear to get into Wikipedia, as a rule, is that there's a substantive reason why he might be notable to the country and/or the world, and not just within one city. Bearcat (talk) 18:51, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GPL93 Great, i'm continuing to learn. As an active member of wikipedia that is charged with helping the community (and its members) grow, I think it would be more in line to edit the page and add this information and sources, instead of deleting the page entirely. As an executive of a national company that is receiving coverage, I would think the notability at a national level is also there? Jkantorjourno Jkantorjourno (talk) 17:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given your disclosure I'm going to assume good faith on your behalf and apologize if I have been too accusatory. Generally speaking, Wikipedia is flooded with articles on non-notable entrepreneurs, business executives, and politicians that are created by pr firms, their employees, and the subjects themselves. Please know that I did search for sources that would help establish notability per WP:BEFORE, but honestly I don't believe the subject meets Wikipedia's notability standards. Being an executive for a national company isn't much help in that regard as there are thousands of nationwide companies, most of which employ a bunch of executives. Same goes for running for office, there are thousands of Americans who stand for election each year and even had he been elected it's not a guarantee he'd pass either WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. In all sincerity, I know it's disappointing when an article you have created is nominated for deletion. You aren't supposed to take it personally when it happens but we're human and we do, but at the end of the day if the subject is deemed by consensus not to meet notability standards then it doesn't. It happens to all of us, I've even had to nominate an article that I myself created for deletion because I realized the subject wasn't notable. I hope this gives you some guidance. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:55, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GPL93 Thank you for these notes and this explanation. I did take it personally because of the jump from the previous page to this one, but I understand your line of thinking. We do disagree on whether he passes WP:GNG or WP:NPOL, but I do leave it up to the Wikipedia admins to resolve in the best interest of Wikipedia. Always trying to get better, it's hard to see someone target/dislike your work. Thanks for the wisdom. Jkantorjourno —Preceding undated comment added 20:30, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a local figure lacking widespread coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His work appears to be great. However, there are many great advocates that do the same work he does in every city. I can't see what makes him notable. Bearian (talk) 01:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No widespread coverage for a local business person and would-be local politician. Just a splashing of minor sources. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:NPOL. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 18:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.