Deletion of Rodney Marks

Comment: and allow recreation. The current article has major problems that  might best be used to fix but he is notable. It was created as an unsourced biased puff piece and still reads like that. Refs were thrown in seemingly at random to make it looked well sourced. Ref 4 (Fin Review) does not verify the sentence it follows, it makes no mention of Marks education. With that deception can we trust the rest of the article? Below is some of the available refs which add up to enough coverage to start a new article with
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)

Comment: The references in the article, if each exists and is more than a passing mention, are enough to satisfy . I'd certainly rather ''see'' the references but, per  and the limited insight of the articles' titles, I;m happy to work on the assumption that they're sufficient. &ndash;&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:AGF)