Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark McGowan (performance artist) (2nd nomination)

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 keep. Daniel (talk) 08:16, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mark McGowan (performance artist)[edit]

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

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

Not a noteworthy individual, article is nearly totally reliant on primary sources and written like an extensive curriculum vitae. James ^{(T • C)} • 04:39 • 11:56, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 12:06, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 12:08, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he has a full profile in the Guardian and a lot of his pieces were covered by BBC with full articles. I would not be opposed to a WP:TNT delete, however, because this article is excessively detailed and sourced with YouTube videos and the like. I do think he is notable, though. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 13:12, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable, an attention seeker who does indeed attract lots of sustained attention in multiple news sources. As per the previous AfD outcome. Of course the article still needs some clean-up, but that is no reason for deletion. Sionk (talk) 18:16, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a really bad nomination. There are multiple good in-depth sources ((BBC, Guardian etc) in the article that indicate that the nom clearly did not do WP:BEFORE. --- Possibly ☎ 10:22, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject clearly passes GNG. Article needs editing, not deletion. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:34, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Comfortably reaches GNG. The article fails verifiability due to heavy reliance on non-reliable sources, but there is no TNT case, since the problem can be solved by simple pruning. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:45, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Yes, McGowan can be considered rather niche, but he is an artist, produces work considered worthy of discussion in secondary sources, and clearly passes GNG. I agree the article requires the attention of an interested copy editor, but that is not a reason to delete. Poltair (talk) 08:46, 9 July 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.