Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Lindquist (2nd nomination)

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, non-notable BLP. Note that I am therefore moving the now-unambiguous Mark Lindquist (sculptor) to this title. bd2412 T 00:07, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Lindquist[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)

My name is Mark and I am the subject of this article. I’m requesting it be deleted. I am not notable according to Wikipedia guidelines as I was only a locally elected official and also no longer serve in that capacity. The page has been used over the last few years as a political platform by someone prosecuted by my former office. While I appreciate someone apparently finds me worthy to put on Wikipedia, the article doesn’t appear to follow Wikipedia guidelines. As such, I request as a courtesy that the article about me be deleted. MarkLindq (talk) 20:43, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:47, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:47, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as a note, the platform has been used by both those heavily against and in favour of Mark Lindquist. This has nothing to do with his notability, but it's a relevant point as to the BLP aspects of the article. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2 - @MarkLindq: last time the discussion decided you were notable by cutting a Gordian knot and sidestepping your position and related controversy - you are notable (by Wikipedia's use of the word) for being an author. The other content is included, but is secondary. I suspect this discussion will come down to whether it's felt that your desire, as the article's subject, is enough to warrant article deletion despite at least some level of WP:NAUTHOR/author notability. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete county prosecutors are not default notable. The coverage of him is not enough to show notability, and there is no good reason to have super indepth coverage of the debates over what devisces are public records.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'd argue that this is a subject on the cusp of notability but not quite there. I agree with the above comment that the coverage is (1) not sufficient for notability and (2) unnecessary in its scope. Gargleafg (talk) 01:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. The subject of the article, being a relatively unknown non-public figure, requests its deletion, so this request should be fulfilled. Utopes (talk) 00:26, 27 October 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.