Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard J. 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. Consensus is that there is little-to-no independent, reliable coverage *about* the topic to indicate notability. The topic may become notable. I would be willing to restore this to user space provided unambiguous significant, independent, reliable coverage is shown, but consensus also seems to indicate an editor undertaking this endeavor would be better-suited to start over. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard J. Marks[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)

Thirty-eight references must mean it's notable, right? Upon examination, no. Invited to take advantage of WP:THREE, the author came back with six:

Newsweek is a primary source interview with Marks and his partner, with no independent analysis by the interviewer.[1]
Link TV is a credit for "Video/Photography" at the end of a video. It is not independent, not secondary, and not significant coverage.[2]
China Daily is a primary source interview—Marks in the words of Marks and his partner—with no independent analysis.[3]
The Atlantic's content about Marks is five sentences and a quotation of a cleansing ritual he read.[4]
Washington Life is not significant coverage. It's a photo caption and the sentence "Amb. Lund and Blue Salon hosts ..., Richard Marks, ... and Haseltine, presented the speakers with hand-blown Swedish glass."[5]
Best of DC is a two-page advertorial spread, not independent, not secondary, and not significant coverage. Its content about Marks? "Our media company is headed by energy, environmental and media professionals, Richard J. Marks, Sophia A. Trapp and Christa Urbain Carr."[6]

The other thirty-two references are worse. The author has engaged in WP:BOMBARD, flooding the article with tangential material, perhaps in the hope that some notability will rub off on Marks. The second paragraph of the China section, for instance, says Hiu Ng and her husband Daniel Foa put Marks in charge of producing and implementing a competition in China. Instead of citing any source that says anyone put Marks in charge of anything, the draft cites sources to prove Ng is married to Foa, sources about Ng's uncle, sources about Clinton, Wen Jiabao, Gordon Brown, UN Under-Secretary General Maurice Strong, and the actress who presented the competition's awards.

Not significant coverage (mentions in the credits, listing as a member/speaker, photo caption, or other brief mention), many also lack independence: Credit Suisse, International Earth Forum, U.S. Dept. of Energy, CATE school bulletin, Marc Marks obit, Link TV, WIREC 2008 ad, ACORE, hulkmovie.com, Innocents at Risk, gcctf.org, and Inland Ocean Coalition
No mention of Marks: Forest Business Network, Credit Suisse press release, TV.com, The Telegraph, Clinton Foundation, Clinton Global Initiative, Selling Big to China, Women of China, Clinton Foundation press release, Culture Change, The Stranger, San Francisco Recreation and Park Commission (x 2), Webby Awards press release, and Marc Marks capsule bio,
Not reliable: factsanddetails (a personal website of a third party), IMDb, filminamerica (x 2, sourced from IMDb)

I was unable to evaluate one source, Bloomberg, which is behind a paywall.[7]. It would have to be a phenomenally good source to pass WP:BIO or WP:GNG on its own (or at best in conjunction with the five sentences in The Atlantic.) Worldbruce (talk) 03:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 03:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. promotional article, focussing in undue detail on a host of minor accomplishments. Nothing that I see is sufficiently substantial to prove notability , and the style is so outrageously promotional and full of puffery that if there is any notability , the article would have to be deleted and started over. Either the promotionalism or the dubious notability is an adequate reason for deletion, let alone the combination. DGG ( talk )

The notability for this person, and the reason for its inclusion in Wikipedia, is a series of environmental first-of's (and one-of's) and convening globally. The Wikipedia editor who approved the original version added a special talk page for "discovery" of how to best approach "one-of's" and "first-of's" events with important, high-profile personalities, that were organized by Marks to support the environment in China and US. It is not Marks who is the speaker, but the organizer/convener/founder. If this can be corrected (repositioned in the writing), for Wikipedia, using the China media references that exist in Newsweek, China Daily, LinkTV, and Washington Life, it would be a worthwhile effort. Second, the subject is a bona fide, credentialed journalist who has taken his content into an original direction. Thus, notability (why he matters) in this case is unique, and why this piece was developed and written in the first place. Clearly not a cookie-cutter journalist following stories, he is seen to be originating, via the convening of people who are change-agents. What this piece should convey is that this behind-the-scenes convener is playing a serious role in leadership voices coming forth. That has been its purpose. Notwithstanding, the mention of his "credentials" as a bona fide journalist at CNN and National Geographic were removed from the original article because in both cases they were broadcast journalism, not print, and therefore are not listed in print materials (except for press releases). If they can be replaced, somehow, then we will have a fuller presentation of credentials.

The content challenge and opportunity has been to introduce (and reputably cite) China. If the bulk of the China work is to be cut, it still stands that The Green Salon was profiled several times by established media, again, as a convening of environmental discussion with people of influence and importance. The International Earth Forum was a "one-of" as was the SISC. They took place in important contexts, such as the beginning of the Olympics, and around the first global commitments to climate change. Context matters here immensely. That context was in the original text.

The nature, notability and relevance of this person is leadership convening.

To try to preserve this article, new content about him as a journalist can be inserted. From the research I have, he was Editor of Washington Life Magazine, appearing on the masthead in every print issue in 2012. Masthead: https://issuu.com/washingtonlife/docs/october2012/10 In October 2012, there is a feature exclusive interview with United Arab Emirates (UAE) Ambassador Al-Otaiba, with byline written by Richard J. Marks (p. 84-87): https://issuu.com/washingtonlife/docs/october2012/83

Lettucecup (talk) 16:02, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Lettucecup[reply]

are you actualy saying that because he was editor, that he printed an editorial written by himself is an independent proof of notability? DGG ( talk ) 01:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no intention here to conflate the two. Because National Geographic and CNN have no print citations available to certify the subject's life and context as a journalist (which were in the original article), I pulled up a new source, that he was Editor of Washington Life magazine in Washington DC, shown in the masthead each month in 2012. The feature article with his byline is a separate link that came up in the search, and is a separate item. Lettucecup (talk) 13:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Lettuecup[reply]

ERRATA/ Per the Worldbruce review of the LinkTV credits, I reviewed the video again. Marks is, in fact, credited in 3 places. The relevant and significant credit is that of Producer, at Time Code 25:30 (Producers: Raisa Scriabine, Richard Marks). (This is significant coverage of the International Earth Forum that Marks, Trapp and Su convened, as described in the article). As Worldbruce indicated, Marks is also credited, along with others, for photography/video (Time Code 23:38). LinkTV credited the co-production (Time Code 24:04) of the environmental television series: "Earth Focus is produced in association with Productions 1000." Marks, as we know from the article, founded Productions 1000, convened the International Earth Forum, and produced the television coverage (not about himself, not about Productions 1000, but about the event in China (which was covered by Johathan Ansfield of Newsweek/New York Times, FU Jiung of China Daily, and Chinese media, during the opening week of the Olympics in China).

[I am aware that our obligation in Wikipedia is not reporting original research, but to work from sourcing. Given this situation, however, where notability can be established, I called the executive producer Raisa Scriabine, who added some additional meaningful detail. Note: this is just for background interest! She said this television segment "mattered a lot" because it was the first-ever (and only) story -- covering CHINA -- that LinkTV/Earth Focus (now called KCETLink) produced and broadcast on its global television network; Earth Focus was the longest-running environmental television program, ever. She felt the voices of youth leaders particularly important then, such as the profile of "China's Green Brothers" that appears in the episode.]

This is all very consistent with what I discovered about Richard Marks during researching and piecing this together ... a track record producing first-of's and one-of's in frontier environmental countries and settings, with prestigious partners, i.e. presenting a forum of leadership (a mix of senior-level and youth), in China and attaining global media coverage, in print and TV, for the environment.]

Further, because of the issues being faced here, I have spoken with Marks to talk about whether there is additional biography of his life and times for Wikipedia. He did say that the Best of DC article was a first-of for Washington DC, and that it was not advertorial. There was no payment, advertising, sponsorship or even an ulterior motive. Other companies profiled include CSPAN and the National Press Club. Marks was interviewed, and that is how it was printed. Productions 1000 was a "new kid on the block" in Washington DC, London and Beijing -- and an independent media outlet focused on energy and environment. The reason there is not more, as it turns out, was due to the Global Breakdown/Recession/Crash of 2009, which came 5 months after launch of the International Earth Forum in Beijing. That, he says, caused everything to freeze. Therefore, subsequent entries arose, such as his senior consultancy at the US Department of Energy, journalistic role as Editor at Washington Life, and publications in conservation finance/Impact Investing -- in continuation of environmentalism.

How I see this: there is a clear thread, a "frontier" context at play for the environment, at an earlier time in climate discussions, when media needed to be focused on convening for solutions for the environment to take a much higher priority. Marks has accomplished that.

Lettucecup (talk) 14:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Lettucecup[reply]

Upon re-review:

Marks is listed in the obituary of his paternal uncle, Congressman Marc L. Marks: https://www.sagelbloomfield.com/obituaries/Marc-Marks/#!/Obituary (located in the tab: "obituary and service")

Regarding the Credit Suisse report "Levering Ecosystems", NO individual authors are listed in the corporate Credit Suisse Press Release. On p. 27, inside the print edition, there are 5 authors cited in the credits page, with a full separate-line credit for Marks cited as "Senior Editorial Advisor, Richard J. Marks, Productions 1000 - Energy, Environment, Sustainability". In addition to Credit Suisse corporate communications, each primary entity issued its own official press release: http://www.productions1000.com/conservation-finance-press-release.html https://www.climatebonds.net/resources/press-releases/creditsuisse-climatebonds-ecosystemfinance/5april-2016 Lettucecup (talk) 15:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Lettucecup[reply]

Hello everyone -- I'm working hard on this. I went back to the original draft, which had much more in it, before the article got so pared down so far that notability became a problem. In the section "Career" the content about the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE) has been restored. Along with it, and context that is needed to make it pertinent and interesting, are two official videos that Marks produced for the leading, signature Renewable Energy events in the United States -- the Renewable Energy Finance Forum (REFF) and WIREC (a high-profile, first-of, and one-of), in which Marks is credited in each one as as sole Producer. To make this easy ... here are the time codes for those credits -- notability: "The State of Renewable Energy Finance” -- https://player.vimeo.com/video/133473382 (Time Code 7:41); "WIREC: Washington International Renewable Energy Conference" -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nxu1YDNI7k4 (Time Code: 8:00). Thanks. Lettucecup (talk) 16:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Lettucecup[reply]

A sentence has been added: In 2012, he was the Editor of Washington Life Magazine. Here is the masthead (2012):

https://issuu.com/washingtonlife/docs/october2012/10 Lettucecup (talk) 16:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Lettucecup[reply]

One of the flags relates to potential need for improvement of the article's lead section.

Therefore, the lead section has been rewritten, and it remains short. Hopefully it is now a sharp and resonant representation of who this person is. Lettucecup (talk) 19:45, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Lettucecup[reply]

1)What's the link for the clarification you refer to here "the Wikipedia editor who approved the original version added a special talk page for "discovery" of how to best approach "one-of's" and "first-of's" events with important, high-profile personalities, that were organized by Marks to support the environment in China and US. " I think it possible that you may have misunderstood completely DGG ( talk ) 04:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not significantly covered in reliable sources per above. GenuineArt (talk) 13:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I am referring to the Talk page of the article, in which Broccoli and Coffee asked for people to offer advice:
- "This is a new page for journalist Richard J. Marks. The main consideration I want to solve is how much information is worthwhile, given that several of the initiatives are high profile, but were one-of's ... and therefore worthy of explanation, and contextual information. Otherwise, for the sake of the page referring to Richard J. Marks, they can be cut. The question is how to best make this page interesting while keeping it within Wikipedia's style guidelines.— 17:13, June 26, 2018 (UTC) Lettucecup (talk) 14:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)Lettucecup[reply]

@Lettucecup: The talk page comment you quote was added by you, not by Broccoli and Coffee, and the only response it elicited, from Drmies, was to the effect that the article wasn't up to standard when they read it. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:49, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Worldbruce. Thanks for all your input, I want you to know I appreciate it. I don't know why the Talk Page quote has my signature on it, but I didn't write it. I didn't create (or edit) that comment. I interacted with Broccoli and Coffee, who edited the page, then placed that commentary on the Talk page when he/she approved the article. In any case, I'm just clarifying because I don't want to sound like I'm not understanding what the comments here are about -- which is a critical tone of some. I understand them. I have rewritten the article completely since you reviewed it, trying to make it work. Thanks again. Lettucecup (talk) 14:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)Lettucecup[reply]

Lettucecup, sorry, but this page is illegible in part because of the many linebreaks. Will you please consolidate into paragraphs, and simply put your signature at the end, not two lines down? Thank you. And please use preview, and try to complete your thoughts before you post them so you don't have to make so many edits: this page already has 15 edits by you. Also, I don't know what you're talking about--you most certainly placed the first talk page comment. Drmies (talk) 15:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Drmies Sorry, I appear to have made a mistake, re: Broccoli and Coffee, who, when the article was approved, posted a request for discussion about how to improve the China references but I don't see it now. I must have copied and pasted it. No worries. The China work with Hiu NG, and USDOE, have been removed, as they cannot be adequately referenced.

At your request, the edits and complete new rewrite, in one place:

Upon re-review:

1. Marks is listed in the obituary of his paternal uncle, Congressman Marc L. Marks: https://www.sagelbloomfield.com/obituaries/Marc-Marks/#!/Obituary (located in the tab: "obituary and service")

2. Regarding the Credit Suisse report "Levering Ecosystems", NO individual authors are listed in the corporate Credit Suisse Press Release. On p. 27, inside the print edition, there are 5 authors cited in the credits page, with a full separate-line credit for Marks cited as "Senior Editorial Advisor, Richard J. Marks, Productions 1000 - Energy, Environment, Sustainability". In addition to Credit Suisse corporate communications, each primary entity issued its own official press release: http://www.productions1000.com/conservation-finance-press-release.html https://www.climatebonds.net/resources/press-releases/creditsuisse-climatebonds-ecosystemfinance/5april-2016 L

3. REWRITE: I went back to the original draft, which had much more in it, before the article got so pared down so far that notability became a problem. In the section "Career" the content about the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE) has been restored/replaced. Along with it, and context that is needed to make it pertinent and interesting, are two official videos that Marks produced for the leading, signature Renewable Energy events in the United States -- the Renewable Energy Finance Forum (REFF) and WIREC (a high-profile, first-of, and one-of), in which Marks is credited in each one as as sole Producer. To make this easy ... here are the time codes for those credits -- notability: "The State of Renewable Energy Finance” -- https://player.vimeo.com/video/133473382(Time Code 7:41); "WIREC: Washington International Renewable Energy Conference" -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nxu1YDNI7k4 (Time Code: 8:00).

4. Regarding the flag about the article's lead section. It has been rewritten, and it remains short. Hopefully it is now a sharp and resonant representation of who this person is. Journalistic accreditation/notability: A sentence has been added: In 2012, he was the Editor of Washington Life Magazine, and is a published writer. With link to masthead (2012): https://issuu.com/washingtonlife/docs/october2012/10

5. ERRATA/ Per the Worldbruce review of the LinkTV credits, I reviewed the video again. Marks is, in fact, credited in 3 places. The relevant and significant credit is that of Producer, at Time Code 25:30 (Producers: Raisa Scriabine, Richard Marks). (This is significant coverage of the International Earth Forum that Marks, Trapp and Su convened, as described in the article). As Worldbruce indicated, Marks is also credited, along with others, for photography/video (Time Code 23:38). LinkTV credited the co-production (Time Code 24:04) of the environmental television series: "Earth Focus is produced in association with Productions 1000." Marks, as we know from the article, founded Productions 1000, convened the International Earth Forum, and produced the television coverage (not about himself, not about Productions 1000, but about the work in China (which was covered by Johathan Ansfield of Newsweek/New York Times, FU Jiung of China Daily, and Chinese media, during the opening week of the Olympics in China). Lettucecup (talk) 16:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)Lettucecup[reply]

In an attempt at clarification: I made comments about the article during a draft review here, as well as a reply on my talk page, which is now here. The comment on the talk page, as Worldbruce mentioned, was left by Lettucecup, not me. I'm not aware of any comments I made about "a request for discussion about how to improve the China references".

In any case, this article has always struggled with reliable sourcing. I think it has the potential to be notable enough, but on closer inspection, the sources don't prove that. Worldbruce conducted a much more thorough review than I did, and for my part, I was probably too quick to approve it while in draft stage. My vote would be to userfy rather than delete. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 18:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Broccoli and Coffee sorry for the confusion, I didn't remember posting that request for assistance, my mistake. Nonetheless, hopefully this article will make it through to rebirth. Thank you for clarifying and replying today. Lettucecup (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)Lettucecup[reply]

Lettucecupp, do you still not realize that being mentioned in his parent's obit does not even contribute to notability ; it just confirms who his father is. Andthat hosting an event where famous people come does not make a person notable? DGG ( talk ) 22:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DGG I am respectfully going to ask you to address your comments, when they are addressed to me directly, in a tone that is not rude. In your comments, you are outright condescending in your tone, even if your comments merit discussion, by me or others. If others stand for it, that's their business, but I won't. The tone of "do you still not realize" and "are you actually saying" etc. is punitive. I will always try to answer questions harmoniously and accurately. I do not want to incite any form of argument, but to help this conversation advance in a neutral and constructive manner. To answer your question in the way I wish to answer it best: Marks is an accredited journalist, convener and environmentalist who translates/broadcasts prestigious convening content into film narratives, especially environmental solutions. Lettucecup (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)Lettucecup[reply]

Userfy - SWEET JESUS - I pity the poor closing admin on this one. In a somewhat more concise fashion, I feel that the provided sources (as well as a look elsewhere) don't satisfy notability. He might have conducted some significant interviews, but that doesn't generate necessary sources on him. A delete seems unwarranted and counter-productive in this case. It is one of the clearest cases where userfy is suitable and would ask the Delete !voters to consider it. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's deletion policy encourages incubation as an alternative to deletion for "articles which have potential". If, as you say, the provided sources and your searches elsewhere don't establish notability (my extensive efforts didn't either) then I'm not sure what potential the article has. The author has had two months to come up with three independent, reliable, secondary sources containing significant coverage of Marks, and has been unable to do so, despite guidance from several experienced reviewers. Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability sums it up. They are, of course, free to save a copy on their own computer; perhaps they can publish it in an alternative outlet that has different inclusion criteria. But we shouldn't encourage investing more editor and reviewer time in something that won't build the encyclopedia. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - For supposedly being a notable journalist, a WP:BEFORE check doesn't really come up with anything at all. I appreciate Lettucecup's hard work on trying to make this work, but truthfully it's just not going to fly because Marks is not a notable subject. Where is there a reliable source about the subject? While I would not be opposed to a userfy here, I can't help but feel that Lettucecup would simply be wasting his/her time, and that this would only be effective if there suddenly was more coverage about Marks, which doesn't exist now. Red Phoenix ^talk 03:28, 22 August 2018 (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.