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 both. Fram (talk) 14:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund Marriage

[edit]

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

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

Non-notable foundation and non-notable researcher. Both topics appear to fail WP:GNG.

I encountered these two articles while doing a DYK review of Edmund Marriage. Both articles have been created by the same editor, who appears to have a WP:COI, but has decided to "excuse" himself from COI restrictions on the grounds that his "interest simply involves saving the Garden of Eden". COI is no reason to delete an article, but it does encourage me to scrutinise a topic's notability.

Edmund Marriage is the director of the Patrick Foundation, and the two articles use an overlapping set of references, which I have examined against WP:GNG:

A mention in the report of Parliamentary Committee, which sounds impressive until scrutinised. It actually amounts only to a reprint of the submission to the committee which Edmund Marriage on behalf of the Patrick Foundation. This is self-written material, which fails GNG's test of coverage "Independent of the subject"
a passing mention in an article by Duff Hart-Davis in The Independent newspaper. This fails GNG's requirement for "Significant coverage".
3 secondary references, all by the same journalist in the same newspaper within 2 months of each other (Geoff Ward, in the Western Daily Press). I have searched the WDP's website for these articles, but find no hits for "Patrick Foundation", and the 6 hits for "Edmund Marriage" are all from what's-on type listings.
I AGF that the three referenced articles do indeed exist, but have no evidence either way on whether they are more than passing mentions, and whether they are just reprinted press releases like the "hound limit" article below. There is also a question as to what extent contemporary English local newspapers meet our criteria for reliable sources, because they have few journalistic resources and little opportunity for fact-checking.

Further searches throw up little:

A Gnews search for "Edmund Marriage" gives several false positives, and AFICS only one real hit: Hound limit 'is crueller to foxes', another local newspaper article. It appears to be a summary of a letter by Marriage, and contains no journalistic assessment or third-party views ... so it is not "independent of the subject"
I also found a passing mention of the Patrick Foundation in a book called "Resurrection Initiation: The Process and the Joy", which does not look like a scholarly reliable source.

Sorry if I have missed anything in my searches. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is fantastic reviewing and scrutiny. Thanks so much, it will really help my future writing. You've raised some very valid points. The three articles written by Geoff Ward and the passing mention by Duff Hart-Davies are questionable regarding GNG requirements. I considered the Parliamentary Committee report as the primary source of notability, which would fail notability requirements if only based on the memorandum on p. 259 you have linked. Fortunately, I based the notability requirement on the lengthier and later section on p. 265 covering both Edmund Marriage and the Patrick Foundation, which is written "independently of the subject". I hope this will meet the guidelines, but let me know if you think this, along with the other bits and bobs don't for any reason. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 15:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Paul, please take a closer look at what is actually on page 265. It is a continuation of the section beginning on page 259, and consists solely of the "Memorandum from The Patrick Foundation". That is definitely not "independent of the subject".

The fact that this theory about the Garden of Eden has been, as you assert, largely been ignored by the corporate world of academia since then undermines any claim to the notability of that work. Similarly the self-styled "quality driving initiative" has been ignored by academia and the news media and by book-writers. It has also been ignored by the rest of the web: its website at http://speed-watch.org has only 2 incoming links

This whole thing looks like part of a promotional exercise for a range of non-notable ventures related to Edmund Marriage. For example the http://www.britishwildlifemanagement.org site is linked to only by The Patrick Foundation website ... but you still linked Marriage's article to that non-notable site.

It is also regrettable that you have not paid closer attention to WP:AVOIDCOI. Your history of sockpuppetry doesn't help me to sustain an assumption of good faith. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I honestly hadn't realized that p.265 was the same memorandum as p.259 due to the third-person writing style of the text. My apologies and well noticed, the article does not meet notability requirements in my opinion either due to this. This is not a promotional exercise as I hope my being the first to vote on this will show I was being honest about my COI. The DYK exercise was entirely to encourage someone like you to review the article better than I could, thanks again for that. I hope this will restore some good faith as I would prefer for my work to be recognized instead of non-notable pages and suspected sockpuppetry, for documenting the archaeology behind O'Brien and Marriage's theories and drawing attention to the 45 sites of the Heavy Neolithic Qaraoun culture (the Elohim in the Bible) on Wikipedia and moving on to the Shepherd Neolithic sites (when the Elohim domesticate animals). Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 17:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – This page has also been listed here. Bwrs (talk) 20:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons given above, esp as Paul Bedson agrees. I had hoped that Paul had stopped working in the area where he has a COI. Dougweller (talk) 06:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear - delete I should declare that Doug asked me to have a look at this, presumably because he's seen me trying to salvage bits from articles with theories about rediscovered cruses of self-producing oil from Solomon's Temple and people using en.wp to market silver trumpets ready for the Third Temple, and this isn't in that league, but there is a large and very obvious big COI problem compounding the Notability problem here, it sticks out a mile just walking into the room on this cluster of articles. In all fairness we cannot keep these articles. We'd have to restore all kinds of similar ones. And BLP material cannot (as I understand the rules, I may be wrong) even be sandboxed, it has to be shredded. Sorry. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Marriage, but merge the foundation into OBrian. BTW, I know of no rule or practice that BLPs can not be sandboxed--except of course if the violate the specific prohibition against unsourced negative information. I don't see any such here. DGG ( talk ) 01:05, 11 September 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.