Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Beam


 * 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) 02:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Mark Beam

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article appears to be here with no references. And may be biographical. Cutno (talk) 06:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - The relevant criteria are WP:N and WP:ARTIST. IMDB confirms he has an associate producer credit on the 2006 film Barnyard and the subsequent Back at the Barnyard TV series.  This satisfies WP:ARTIST criterion 3: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject [...] of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."  This Google search reveals the usual crowd of "independent periodical articles or reviews" that you'd expect for a feature film like Barnyard.  As far as independent notability, this review includes a fairly extensive feature on Beam himself. - DustFormsWords (talk) 10:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - I don't think this person is notable enough as of yet due to an apparent lack of significant coverage. Beam is not once mentioned in either the Barnyard or the Back at the Barnyard articles. Voting in favour of deletion due to the subject's questionable notability and on the basis that the article appears to be an autobiography. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 10:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - What does or does not appear on Wikipedia can neither be an argument for or against Keep; it may simply be the case that those other articles are in need of improvement. Similarly, the fact that the article is written as an autobiography is not an argument for Delete if the subject of the article is nevertheless notable; matters that can be cleaned up through normal editing are not matters for AfD. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My opinion still stands that Beam's notability is fairly questionable. The article was created by an SPA and just earlier today an extra URL was added to the external links section by a (another SPA). This article appears to have been created as nothing more than a promotional page for an artist with questionable notability. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 23:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Somehow, the article feels like advertising, and it does not appear to be written in a encyclopedic fashion. Lack acceptable references. --Cutno (talk) 23:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You have have already cast your delete vote above when you nominated. You cannot vote twice. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in the Deletion policies that I could find that would prohibit me from casting a vote. What I believe I did when I created the AfD was nominate it. The after there was a vote by another editor, I added mine. --Cutno (talk) 14:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is WP:SPAM, WP:AUTO, and WP:COI from a WP:SPA.  It is exactly how NOT to write a WP article.  Qworty (talk) 04:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - WP:SPAM, WP:AUTO, WP:COI and WP:SPA are not valid reasons to delete an article if the subject of the article is notable and the article can be fixed through normal editing. Please read WP:DEL and WP:ATD. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh, did you read the article? The guy sculpted a cow.  And that's the best he can say about himself!  No amount of "normal editing" or wikilawyering will ever lend this unintentionally humorous piece of fluffy spam the necessary notability for encyclopedic inclusion.  Please, we're all serious adults here.  The thing should be speedied so that nobody else need ever waste time with it again. Qworty (talk) 15:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Qworty it's because we are serious adults here, or we're supposed to be, that I think we need to remain civil in these BLP nominations. This is no less a waste of time than any other AfD. He's a folk artist who once sculpted a cow, so what? The next time you're in NYC, I invite you to check out the American Folk Art Museum, next to MoMa, filled with similar works. Folk and outsider art can be notable. I vote delete because he fails WP:ARTIST, with no prejudice against recreating, should he gain more critical attention at some point. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with recreation in the future either, mind you, unless it's created again as an autobio. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 17:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, good point. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete – Article lacks sufficient Attribution for Verifiability of the WP:ARTIST notability criteria, or even WP:GNG … pure weapons grade vanispamcruftisement. Happy Editing! &mdash;  23:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - If you're making a Speedy Delete argument it would be helpful to note which of the speedy deletion criteria you say applies. The notability claimed is against WP:ARTIST criterion 3, the support for that claim is in the sources in the article and in my comments above, and it's then a matter of argument as to whether his involvement in Barnyard and Back to the Barnyard is sufficient to meet the claimed criterion.  Neither attribution nor verifiability are the issue; the question is notability. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep if references can be provided and verified. On his website he claims to be in the collections of Smithsonian Institution, K. C. Parishath Art Museum, Bangalore, India and LA County Museum of Art which may be enough to establish notability. Likewise, his bibliography lists New York Times, Germany Playboy and Better Homes & Gardens: the last two are not necessarily where most artists would want to find themselves, but they're legitimate publications and useful if verified and substantial (i.e. he's not just mentioned in passing). The big one: he has the words "2009 Emmy Award Winner" on his website which is confusing as it does not elaborate. Did he win an Emmy? If so, combined with all the rest, he passes notability. Yes, the article needs a big clean-up. And I need to remind everyone that writing an autobiographical article is not a reason for deletion. If a notable person writes their own article we rewrite it and send them a WP:COI warning. (And yes, I am quite aware of what's on my user page and I still stand by that but there are exceptions to that all-important rule that I made up).  freshacconci  talk talk  17:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete, insufficient references at this time, in the article, to verify notability. If the claims which Fresh have said the subject of the article have made, can be substantiated from third party reliable sources, then I would be more then happy to change my thought on this article to Keep. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.