Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Siegel

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Siegel

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

per WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC No secondary sources at all. Active for four years with no notable contribution. Self promotion probably. Muhandes (talk) 23:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Revert~~Delete to this version of the article which is about a different Mark Siegel (illustrator) which was overwritten by User:Marksiegelmusic and User:MediaMGMT. There is a clear conflict of interest, and the material is a copy of his web site's biography (see [1] and then play hunt the wumpus to navigate to his bio) making this problematic from a copyright standpoint. -- Whpq (talk) 16:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, I should have been more observant. WP:SNOW? --Muhandes (talk) 16:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I got clued into it by the talk page where there was an allusion to the "other Mark Siegel". I've dropped a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup#Mark_Siegel asking about how to deal with the article history. -- Whpq (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that refers to a third Mark Siegel, co-writer of Reconciliation: Islam, Democracy and the West (with Benazir Bhutto).--Muhandes (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Ha! That means I caught this through sheer dumb luck! If it weren't for the note in the talk page, I doubt I would have delved into the article history! -- Whpq (talk)

Comment History split and article disambiguated - the first Mark Siegel is now at Mark Siegel (illustrator). There's probably a case to make that if the Mark Siegel subject to this AfD is deleted, the illustrator can move back to the present article space, but seeing how the article hijack has been attempted multiple times, I'd suggest that Mark Siegel is turned into a redirect instead. Also note that I'll subject the musician's article to a copyvio cleanup in a couple of minutes. MLauba ^(Talk) 09:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose now that the other Mark Siegel was restored, this AfD can continue. The original reasons for deletion still stand. --Muhandes (talk) 11:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've changed to "delete" as the split of teh article now means that we do not need to revert to keep the original material for the other Mark Siegel. -- Whpq (talk) 12:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Seems like self-promo. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 00:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable BLP with no secondary sources, self-promotion. Rlendog (talk) 03:19, 21 July 2010 (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.