Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Koltko-Rivera
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. SarahStierch (talk) 06:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Mark Koltko-Rivera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Though appears to be extensively referenced at first glance, a closer look reveals that most of the sources are primary (subject's own writing, subject's own blog posts); outside of that, he's quoted for a few sentences in a New York Post article about interpretations of Dan Brown's novel. Bottom line, I'm not seeing much non-trivial third party reliable source coverage. Aside from editors doing general maintenance, article entirely written by an editors with few edits outside of this article. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I came across this earlier and thought I'd come back to turn what appeared to be a fan site into a proper WP entry. The subject is non-notable and I agree about the quality of the sources. I'd only underscore the blog posts used as sources. The subject's own blog posts. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A clear-cut case of a promotional article; there's no real evidence that the rest of the world cares about this fellow's blogs and the like. Mangoe (talk) 18:05, 10 August 2012 (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.