Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Robinowitz

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. - Mailer Diablo 06:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Robinowitz

Non notable webmaster of a conspiracy site. Not a single reliable source in the article. Fails WP:V and WP:BIO. Peephole 03:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. 205.157.110.11 03:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I wouldn't say that Robinowitz fails WP:V (I think I can verify that he exists), but he does fail WP:BIO. Has no publications to his name besides his website, which does not pass WP:WEB. --Hyperbole 04:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Tbeatty 05:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Badly fails WP:V. Resolute 05:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Aude (talk) 06:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Say it with me article writers: Conspiracy theory. --Neo 06:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:BIO.--MONGO 06:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:BIO - --Charlesknight 08:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. (BTW, Chip Berlet's description of Robinowitz as "essentially an industrious rumor-mongerer with a penchant for conspiracy theories" was in an email which Robinowitz reproduces here, which is not a WP:RS.) CWC(talk) 11:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Primary sourcing is very good, and mostly appropriate, but there are no secondary reliable sources, and no notability established. - Crockspot 14:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn and 100% original research. --Kitch ^{(Talk : Contrib)} 15:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and fails Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement, WP:NOT, WP:BIO and particularly WP:NOR. Morton devonshire 20:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Morton devonshire. JungleCat talk/contrib 20:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - other than a few articles for a local paper (Eugene Weekly), the stuff this guy writes is mostly published on his own site.--csloat 21:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:BIO, doesn't do much outside his website. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 01:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, all references are to the subject's own website! Who thought this was a good idea?--Rosicrucian 15:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, surprised to see an article with such a narrow array of sources ... that being all the same source. considering no secondary sources and other then running a website which isnt very notable in itself, I feel as though the subject fails WP:BIO and the article as a whole obviously fails WP:RS. --NuclearZer0 12:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Em-jay-es 20:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Peephole. Akanksha 04:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

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.