Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Gottlieb (Literary Agent)

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Gottlieb (Literary Agent)

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

Apparently non-notable literary agent, works in his father's agency. No indication of in-depth coverage in solid independent sources. Possible – but strenuously denied – undisclosed paid editing under discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:HeatherMPinchbeck. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 07:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bravo, again same issue. I guess we already discussed that if paid I'll disclose, but you seem to force me. Anyway, I have no issues, delete the whole Wikipedia because you owns it. I am feeling enough harassed and chased WP:HARASS. I don't care whether it stays or not. You feel it shouldn't be there being one of the famous living agent in the US it's fine. Anyway, please if anyone could explain and enhance the article it is appreciated. SoWhy You saved the article please I want your views. HeatherMPinchbeck (talk) 08:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not misunderstand my actions. I did not "save" the article, I merely decided that it cannot be speedy deleted under WP:A7. I have not made any judgment call on the subject's notability nor do I have any views about the subject. Regards So Why 11:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is also a series of WP:HOUNDING and WP:HARASS including not respecting good faith. You can see the involvement. I already asked help on how to close my Wikipedia account. I am done, enough harassed. I want a peace of mind, I am not a terrorist that they are chasing my edits like I am planting some explosive devices. HeatherMPinchbeck (talk) 08:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no claim to notability and no significant coverage in independent sources. --bonadea contributions talk 09:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not clear what is supposed to be notable here - that he went to college, that he has a job? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 12:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG. No claim to notability made. Edwardx (talk) 12:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this rather poor article comes nowhere near to proving notability. Domdeparis (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no assertions of anything suggesting notability - it looks like just another of those "X is a person who has a job" articles. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Boing! said Zebedee. SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 22:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete any allged paid editing is beside the point here. The sources simply do not demonstrate notability. Indeed this is right on the edge of A7, and I am known to be less willing than some to delete for A7. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:40, 6 July 2017 (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.