Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marshall Rose

:{{la|Marshall Rose}} ([{{fullurl:Marshall Rose|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marshall Rose}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Does not seem worth a wikipedia entry to me. More like a vanity page.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Trudyjh (talk • contribs) 2009/07/30 02:30:33

:*This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep — Subject is notable, but current article is just a CV-dump. Jouster  (whisper) 15:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not the place to post your resume. Edward321 (talk) 14:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC){{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marshall Rose||}}

• Delete Looks like a posting of a resume. A well thought our article might be a different question, however. Billbowery (talk) 05:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC){{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marshall Rose||}}

• Delete. He is a well-known name in the internet protocol world, so I wanted to find some excuse to save this, but I couldn't find the sourcing. And the article in its present state is not worth much. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Subject meets WP:ACADEMIC. Article meets WP:V. I don't see any WP:BLP issues. Since the subject has not (as far as I can tell from the history) created the article, the nominator's assertion of WP:VANITY seems unsupportable. The article may be poorly written, but that means it needs to be improved, not deleted. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 10:08, 16 August 2009 (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.