Template:Did you know nominations/Edmund Marriage

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Edmund Marriage

(

)

... that Edmund Marriage is a British lobbyist who has campaigned on issues from wildlife management to driving safety?

Reviewed: Symphony (video game)

Created/expanded by Paul Bedson (talk). Self nom at 20:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

. This is new enough and long enough to meet the criteria, but the article has many serious problems, including:

1. Is there a WP:COI here? The creator of this article (user:Paul Bedson) has also created the article on the linked Patrick Foundation, and both articles use the same sources. Bedson's name appears twice on the website of The Patrick Foundation Golden Age Project: [1], [2] ... and Bedson has clearly at least met Edmund Marriage, becuase he claims authorship of the portrait photo File:Edmund marriage.jpg
2. I see no plausible assertion of notability. The only claim to notability is that the subject is head of the Patrick Foundation, but that article itself offers scant evidence of notability: only 3 secondary references, all by the same journalist in the same newspaper within 2 months of each other (Geoff Ward, in the Western Daily Press). Similarly, the article on Marriage himself uses the same 3 Geoff Ward secondary sources plus a passing mention in an article by Duff Hart-Davis in The Independent. Both articles appear to fail both WP:GNG and WP:BIO.
3. Para 2 is completely unsourced
4. There are several instances of WP:PEACOCK prose:
  - "He lobbies on a range of key issues"
  - "has attended as a partner the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs "Partnership Against Wildlife Crime" since inception" (what does "as a partner mean"?)
  - "His notable research amongst a range of submissions" (who says its notable? Any source for that value judgement, or evidence of its notability, such as citation details)
5. In several places the sentence structure is convoluted. Even the lead sentence "Edmund Marriage (born 28 February 1941) is the director of the Patrick Foundation and British Wildlife Management, an independent researcher, lobbyist and lecturer" is poor grammar, and it is also self-contradictory. (Is he head of a Foundation, or is he independent?)
6. Even if those serious problems can be resolved, the hook citeria do not appear to be met. They specifically say Try to avoid hooks that take the form of "... that X is Y? -- yet this hook is just that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- The more I look at this, the less I like it. For example:
  1. The article is an orphan, linked to only from one mainspace page:Patrick Foundation, which in turn links only to Edmund Marriage.
  2. the article claims that Marriage lobbies for the “Quality Driving Initiative”. But although the website claims lots of involvement, the term gets no Gnews hits, and a general Google search for term throws up only 10 hits. 2 of those are on Wikipedia, two of them [https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmtran/460/460we60.htm, [3] are the same evidence section of a House of Commons Select Committee report to which the Patrick Foundation made a submission, and the ctte reprinted the submission in full along with all the other submissions. None of the other 4 appear to be reliable sources ... but one of them is http://justenergyradio.com/archive-pages/emarriage.htm, with almost identical text to the Wikipedia article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

- Fantastic job reviewing the article BrownHairedGirl. Thanks. It needed looking at by someone who knows the rules better than me. I'll sort out the peacocking and try to change the text significantly from the justenergyradio site and try to improve the article according to your recommendations over the next few days. I am not sure why the house of commons report would fail to meet notability requirements, it gives him a pretty good write up along with the Patrick Foundation, from which the article was primarily based. If you read my userpage you'll perhaps understand that conflict of interest, I have met Edmund, and conducted the original survey of a 1 mile, straight, rock-cut trench leading to the source of the Jordan river in the Aaiha plain in 2009, which Edmund's uncle Christian O'Brien suggested was the Garden of Eden archaeological site in 1984 and has largely been ignored by the corporate world of academia since then. Considering my interest simply involves saving the Garden of Eden and getting the records of human culture straight, purely in the interest of the benefit of mankind. Whilst appreciating the guidance, I excuse myself from writing COI articles on the grounds that I have no personal or financial motivation and have exterminated greed from my personality in this endeavour to get as much of these records of the origins of our culture documented before their imminent destruction by Lebanese bulldozers. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 00:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh my. Brownhaired Girl is correct. This person does not strike me as notable either, and AfD is the next step. 66.168.247.159 (talk) 01:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Edmund Marriage for deletion

The article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edmund Marriage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)