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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Pearlman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Promotional in nature and references are suspect. Whitemancanjump23 (talk) 05:42, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 September 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:00, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article has existed since 2009 and appears adequately referenced to confirm notability. I removed hyperlinks. David notMD (talk) 07:53, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Massachusetts. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:30, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Prob Delete - I could be wrong because a) my searches are not coming up with much due to several people having the same name and b) the sources on the page being IMO pretty poor. However, my guess is that the coverage is weak. I'm open to changing my mind if a keep !voter shows me some sources that unambiguously meet the GNG. JMWt (talk) 07:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:28, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I concur with JMWt's reasoning. The referencing relies heavily on non-RS, such as podcasts on iTunes and PR, as well as the subjects own work. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:40, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Looks like a resume, don't see the SIGCOV in RS needed to establish N. Fails GNG Jacona (talk) 18:53, 27 September 2023 (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.