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. Drmies (talk) 04:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Morningstar[edit]

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

Article contains one reference to a website of the subject. Article fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP. Delta13C (talk) 08:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- This person is totally non-notable. BMK (talk) 08:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as the very embodiment of non-notable. This deprodding ought to win some sort of award for over-literal application of rules; yes, the WP:BLPPROD template technically shouldn't be used if the article contains any kind of reference, but a deadlink to the subject's own website used for the sole purpose of proving they exist is clearly not a "source" in any meaningful sense of the word. ‑ iridescent 09:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 10:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 10:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet GNG, or any notability or inclusion guideline. Softlavender (talk) 04:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of meeting any specific notability guideline, and I couldn't find any independent coverage that would meet WP:GNG. EricEnfermero (Talk) 21:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The subject has received some significant coverage in a reliable source, such as this article in The Flint Journal, which was found using the Google news link atop this discussion. However, I'm not finding additional significant coverage to qualify an article for the subject; does not meet WP:BASIC at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Promotional in intent, no indication of importance. Should have been sent to PROD. Carrite (talk) 16:23, 1 December 2015 (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.