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 keep. (Considering the lengthy delete !vote by 71.236.220.239 as an extended nom. rationale); The nom. doesn't seem based in policy; not only doesn't it mention any, but I find no existing policy that would explicitly support the argument. However no policy is brought forth in the other two !votes... Considering that, and the particular circumstances of this AfD, I'm reluctant to close as an actual keep; this is not a standard "No consensus" that would result from highly-divided arguments, but I find no policy-based arguments to delete. I'm reluctant to close as keep for the same reasons, but will default to it; the keep !vote seems closer to the general notability policies currently in place. NPASR. Salvidrim! ✉ 20:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Mencher[edit]

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

Completing nomination per WP:AGF for IP editor 71.236.220.239, who posted a request at WT:AFD. Looking at the article, I note that there are some reliable-looking sources already in place. Whether those sources show notability is something to discuss here, but it's worth noting. I also cannot find evidence that someone spamming links to their wiki article from LinkedIn is a violation of our policies, nor does it appear to be a cause for deletion - obviously, the reverse would be a different story. Some more detail about how this article is being used for promotion would be worthwhile, and I've asked the IP to provide that. On the merits, I make no recommendation. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an account, so I can't do it, but I think it fails the notability test and he is using the article to promote himself in the spam he sends from LinkedIn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.220.239 (talk) 06:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Noting that I work in the same industry as Mencher, and have met him in passing at a couple of conferences. He is definitely notable in his field, and as Ultraexactzz noted, there is nothing against policy for someone linking to a Wikipedia article from their LinkedIn profile. The article appears to have plenty of sources, and I see no valid reason to delete. --El on ka 17:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. I can find nothing to suggest notability Deangunn (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have added several more sources to the article, just a small selection of the many available. Hopefully this will help clarify notability. --El on ka 17:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE. Perhaps I'm not well calibrated---and I apologize if this is the case---but I didn't think writing a few articles (plus a couple of books, that are only one tick above junk publishing) about something qualified one for inclusion in Wikipedia. If you remove from the article all the links that are dependent of the subject, does it satisfy the criteria that "people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter"? I don't think so. It appears that this person has made a career out of being an expert on how to get jobs in the game industry---without ever actually working substantively in the game industry---and has contributed substantial biographical information about credentials, education, and employment that is not externally verifiable (largely, I presume, because very few people care...which is the point, isn't it?). I'm not an expert on Wikipedia practice and standards, but if this person deserves a Wikipedia article, then so do I...and I definitely don't deserve one! The point about LinkedIn is well taken---there's certainly nothing in and of itself wrong with someone linking to their own page---but it rubs me the wrong way: a person who is clearly deserving of a wikipedia article probably has better things to do with their time than use it for self promotional purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.220.239 (talk) 04:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Noting that 71.236.220.239 (talk · contribs) is the account that nominated this article for deletion in the first place. --El on ka 02:19, 17 January 2013 (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.