Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Fox (journalist)

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. Courcelles (talk) 21:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Fox (journalist)[edit]

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

Although sources are given in the article of the subject, I still feel that this article is more of a resume of someone who might be less notable than portrayed. Sources either do not contain info about the subject, or are somehow personally linked to the subject (e.g. own website, etc.). Would like a debate about the encyclopaedic relevance of this subject Sheroddy (talk) 15:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article would in any case need to be completely re-done because it does not follow Wiki-style; instead, the links are hyperlinks to pages of named organizations but with no mention of the person who is the subject of the article. That said, I could not find information about the person who is the subject of the article. My gut feeling is that this is a promotional piece written to bolster the WP article on his organization, Business_Services_Association. That latter article is also lacking in supporting sources and should probably be re-written or deleted. (They were created by the same WP editor.) LaMona (talk) 17:24, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I completely agree with you, LaMona. The article about his company, Business Services Association, has been nominated before for deletion but was kept with a "week keep". Would it be possible to nominate that article for deletion again?--Sheroddy (talk) 18:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - It looks like the AfD for that article turned up some better sources, but those have not yet been added to the article. It is possible that the BSA is notable. I'll try to find time to look at the sources. It was AfD'd and kept just days ago, although there wasn't a great deal of discussion. LaMona (talk) 06:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, the AfD for the BSA was in June. Still recent, and was not improved. /me still looking at references. LaMona (talk) 06:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless this can actually be improved as I'm not seeing anything here. SwisterTwister talk 05:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches failed to turn up any WP:RS on this individual with in-depth coverage enough to satsify WP:GNG. Regarding BSA, LaMona listed several potential sources on the article's talk page. The first one appears to be a press release from the organization. The second is behind a firewall, so I can't access it. The third and fourth briefly mention the organization (the 3rd very briefly), and the fifth is another brief mention. David Biddulph rightly tagged the existing refs in the article as dead links. A News search returned a couple of dozen hits, but all appear to be brief mentions, along the lines of "a spokesperson for BSA said...", "according to the BSA...", and the like. Might pass WP:BASIC, but I don't think it passes WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:38, 28 September 2015 (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.