Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Windows

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. The consensus is that due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources, the subject is not notable at this time. Mz7 (talk) 08:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Windows[edit]

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

I am unable to find significant third party coverage of this individual per WP:GNG or WP:BIO. The only third-party source given (NY Times) only identifies him as the person in a photo but does not mention him otherwise. ... discospinster _talk 14:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect I should jump the gun and delete under WP:BLP since it's making primary source based-original research claims about living persons. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is it original research? The archive.org links were sent to me, they are in the public domain and have been viewed by numerous people. BM85194 (talk) 14:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They are interpretation of primary sources. We can't take a statement from someone and describe it as antisemitic, we have to get a professionally-published secondary or tertiary source that identifies the statement as antisemitic. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I will work harder to get him exposed in a primary source. BM85194 (talk) 14:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BM85194: No, primary sources are the problem, the article needs professionally-published secondary or tertiary sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and bordering on WP:G10. Power~enwiki (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed several sections. No longer a case of WP:G10. He's still not notable. Power~enwiki (talk) 16:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see absolutely nothing here that allows him to even come close to being notable. It's not our job to host anybody's work on our website; not are we a publisher of any primary sources. Using us for profit purposes jeopardizes out charity status. Bearian (talk) 16:00, 22 August 2017 (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.