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. → Call me Hahc21 06:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Friedland[edit]

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

This article, written by a now-blocked COI editor who is almost certainly a paid editor, is in my opinion too promotional to rewrite by normal editing, and is at in addition of such borderline notability that it is not worth the total rewriting that would be necessary.

The best practice with such articles is to remove them entirely. We do not prohibit paid editing, but we do prohibit paid editing like this, that reflects the financial conflict of interest. If an editor without COI wants to do a proper job of it, it can be started over. DGG ( talk ) 00:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The nomination sums up the issues at hand and I would go further to argue that the subject doesn't meet WP:N or WP:BIO. The entire article reeks as promotion and the subject's notability is questionable at best. He leads a small company that hasn't made much of an indent on the world, and the greatest claim to fame is the envelopes for the Oscars. That gave him passing coverage leading up to the Oscars (anything tangentially related to Oscars gets a little bit of coverage these days). But there wasn't the in-depth coverage we need to show enduring notability. Them From Space 14:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
comment I mostly agree that this is a purely promotional article, and should get blowed-up. However, the above comment referencing "enduring notability" concerns me, as notability is not temporary. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 17:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're misreading that guideline. Our notability guidelines are created to roughly judge which topics have enduring notability. My wording was specifically referring to WP:NOTNEWS, the policy which differentiates enduring vs. temporary notability. Them From Space 18:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 24 March 2014 (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.