Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark York

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Uses x (talk • contribs) 09:00, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mark York

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Mark York (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NACTOR, as it doesn't meet any of the three points. WP:VERIFIABILITY is also of doubt as most of the citations have taken all their information (other than his acting roles) directly from his obituary without analysing this information, and so they are not valid WP:SECONDARY sources, and are instead WP:PRIMARY. Uses x (talk • contribs) 16:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've seen articles in worse shape and are still kept. This article is well sourced and I've checked the sources and they line up with the info given (except his filmography, while some made references to them they did not specify the episode he appeared in). --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @TDKR Chicago 101 I accept that the sources back up everything that's said in the article, the problem is the sources entirely depend on primary sources for his personal life. Do you have any comments as to his notability? Uses x (talk • contribs) 04:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sourcing seems adequate to me. He also has a full-article obit in the New York Times. Articles have survived AFD with much less. Are any specific claims being contested? The man had a memorable role in a major sitcom, and many people are curious about the man’s life, so I hope this can be resolved soon. Zagalejo (talk) 02:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Zagalejo The main concern is notability. For the closest point in WP:NACTOR that applies, he needs to have "significant roles" (plural), while even his role in The Office is up for debate as for significance. The policy exists to stop Wikipedia:PSEUDO biographies which the article currently is, where his single role in The Office is the primary focus. Uses x (talk • contribs) 03:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article is reasonably balanced as it is, and I've seen additional "non-Office" facts that haven't been included yet. I also think the page easily satisfies the General notability guideline, which would trump the actor guideline. (But even the actor guideline seems to allow for some wiggle room. Depending on how generous you are, one can argue that he satisfies points 2 and 3. I certainly remembered him from his role on The Office, and there are plenty of Office fans out there who remember his scenes very well. He did make an impact in his supporting role.) Zagalejo (talk) 04:13, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the WP:GNG route, the details about his personal life would need to be secondary sources, while all the sources make it clear they're getting the information straight from his personal site and his obituary, and so they are still primary sources for that information. I saw even the NYT obituary does this. If there are sources repeating the same information before his death I will consider this satisfied, and I'll withdraw this nomination. Uses x (talk • contribs) 04:24, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is a fairly large amount of information from newspaper databases like NewsBank. I've added a few of those articles as sources. He was being written about, in some detail, long before his death. Zagalejo (talk) 04:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn by nominator While his personal life is still almost entirely based on the primary sources I've stated above, with the addition of the newspapers in mind (specifically, the expansion of his advocacy work, so that his article is not all about The Office), I've decided it's best to give the benefit of the doubt that it meets WP:GNG rather than support the deletion of what is now, in my eyes, a good article. Uses x (talk • contribs) 09:00, 26 May 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mark_York&oldid=1028215544"