Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Stanley (lighting designer)

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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Stanley (lighting designer)[edit]

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

Declined speedy, unreferenced BLP, no assertion of notability, and in an admittedly quick search I found no significant coverage. Do we keep or toss? --Nuujinn (talk) 10:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (well, two comments): There are a few sources available for this, including interviews ([1]), biographies ([2], [3]) and a few passing mentions in reviews ([4], [5]). But I'm not familiar enough with the topic to know which of those would be considered reliable and independent. On a procedural note, the article still doesn't have an AfD tag on it... Alzarian16 (talk) 20:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I noticed Alzarian16's comment that this article was never tagged itself for this AfD, and have now added the AfD to the article. Would it be appropriate to relist as the article hasn't been marked for either of the last two passes? --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would think so, it's a BLP, and we're not in a rush. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've pressed the button. I realize that in doing this myself I've been a little WP:IARish, if there's an objection feel free to let fly with the trout. :-) --j⚛e decker ^talk 18:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached (previously this AfD hadn't been marked on the article in question).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 18:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. Nominated for deletion on the 6th but AFD tag not added to the article until the 20th. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Why does a lighting designer turn up on the academics' page? Xxanthippe (talk) 03:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Because he's an associate professor at BU, I think. --Crusio (talk) 09:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Delete per nom: no evidence of notability. --Crusio (talk) 09:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I can't see the basis for any meaningful claim to notability. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:49, 27 November 2010 (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.