Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marc Straus (2nd nomination)

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. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 06:01, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Straus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This article fails WP:NBIO on a number of levels and should be deleted. As written, this article fails WP:GNG as the individual appears to have NOT “received significant awards or honors” and has NOT “made a widely recognized contribution that is part of an enduring historical record in a specific field.” Further, the only national coverage pertains to a claim of fraud, which, based on a review of the sources, would not even rise to the level to be considered for WP:CRIME as noted: “A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person.” As a perpetrator, this person fails WP:perp as the victim is not “a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities AND “The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role.” If no consensus is reached on this second AFD, based on the need for additional WP:RS, editors should consider WP:Draftify GhostDust (talk) 04:15, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:39, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:39, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:39, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The standard for the GNG isn't “received significant awards or honors” and “made a widely recognized contribution that is part of an enduring historical record in a specific field.” The subject just needs to receive "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." There are more than enough references in the article that meet this criteria (e.g. [1] [2] [3] [4] and the offline sources such as [5] and [6]). In addition, I believe the subject meets WP:NPROF since he meets the criterion of "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources" as a widely cited author of academic papers (see Google Scholar). Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Plenty of coverage in reliable sources over the course of multiple years easily satisfies the notability requirements. Mlb96 (talk) 03:12, 23 June 2021 (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.