Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Beam (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   that the article is better than it was before, but still consensus to delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Mark Beam
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I came across this article via a request at REFUND. The article was to be speedied as a copyvio, but I declined it since it was from a site that mirrors Wikipedia. The article was previously deleted back in 2009, but the AfD didn't have all of the sources that I've since added to the article and a very large concern over how promotional the article was written. (You can see the original state of the article here, which is essentially how it was written in 2009.) Now the claims to fame are pretty much the same, but I don't entirely think that this qualifies for G4 since there are more sources here. I'd just feel better if this ran through a second AfD as opposed to just speedy deletion, so we can say that the current sources were taken into consideration. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   09:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  14:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  14:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  14:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  14:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

* Delete Celebrity hanger-on who hopes fame will rub off on him. Truth to the Fourth Power (talk) 05:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Struck a sockpuppet's edit. Dougweller (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete, while the subject of the article has received multiple mentions in reliable sources, no source, other than the presently used LA Times article, that is non-primary or secondary appear to provide the subject significant or in-depth coverage to verify that the subject meets WP:GNG, let alone WP:ARTIST. If someone wants, this article can be incubated and worked on in an editors non-article space, until which time sufficient reliable sources can be found that meet the criteria set forth in any applicable notability guideline for inclusion in this project.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, still fails WP:GNG and there might be enough references for a redirect but not much for a separate article. VandVictory (talk) 14:07, 27 January 2015 (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.