Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Gillespie (entertainment manager)


 * 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 redirect to Three Six Zero. Consensus is that an article should not exist, but one reasonable source does exist, and a redirect to the company would be appropriate. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Mark Gillespie (entertainment manager)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Only a single ref looks reasonable. The first two read very much as though they are press releases.Also noteworthy that we have both socks and paid editors amongst the list of editors - not a reason for deletion, but surely if you were paid for this, these must be the best refs that are available. They don't get close to passing muster. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk 21:40, 9 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. This should have speedily deleted as per WP:G5 anyway since Breeze897 is an obvious sockpuppet of Go Fish Digital (BurritoSlayer), although it couldn't be verified by CU because it is stale. --MarioGom (talk) 21:55, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep If one ref is good, then it is worth an article. I found two other, with 2 minutes of searching. I think more could be surfaced. The above information about socks is irrelevant, as the majority of edits are normal edits, and as such is outwith process. scope_creep (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - One reference is NOT enough. An the refs should be added to the article so that all editors can have the opporunity of reviewing the evidence. Claiming that notability is out there somewhere is not appropriate. The fact that the creator is likely a sock of a large promotional meat farm, only strengthens my belief that this should not be on Wikipedia. This is a material issue since the only other substantive edits have also been made by a declared paid editor (since reverted), the remaining edits have been removing promotional text and general maintenance.  Velella  Velella Talk 13:56, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment There were no significant additions to the article after its creation. Most later edits are either cleanups or COI edits that were reverted. So I think it is relevant. --MarioGom (talk) 15:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not relevant. We follow policy. There is no policy to delete socked articles, once the promotional stuff has been removed and sufficient updates through the normal editing process have taken place, by the usual Wikipedia filing editors, which has happened here. It passes WP:SIGCOV and subsequently WP:BIO, as additional references are available. The majority of the edits are now Wikipedia edits, with the revision history insufficiently damaged to push for deletion, re G5. So G5 and Afd are not suitable. MarioGom, you have never created any content, and clearly do not know how articles grow. The idea that it will sit there preserved in aspic is nonsense. It will grow like any other article, through consensus.  scope_creep (talk) 18:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not really appreciate this comment: MarioGom, you have never created any content, since it is not true. But I'm certainly not fully familiar with all policies on English Wikipedia, since it is not my home wiki. Anyway, thank you for clarifying G5 relevance here. --MarioGom (talk) 23:50, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 04:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Redirect to his company; there's not enough material for a separate article. .  DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Three Six Zero since target already contains all relevant current content; WP:BOGOF applies to some degree in terms of trying to improve if there did happen to be amazing sourcing available but not visible; and his notability doesn't appear separable from that of his company. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 07:09, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:14, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the company; there's no independent notability here and the sources provide no information about Gillespie beyond "co-founder of this company". In fact, all content of the article beyond that is either unsourced or about the company anyway. Huon (talk) 17:43, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. The refs in the article don't support notability, no refs presented here, not looking for him, promotional. Szzuk (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * A redirect to Three Six Zero seems like a sensible WP:ATD-R solution here. Current sourcing is not substantial enough for a dedicated biographical article. Sam Sailor 00:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:BIO and WP:BOGOF.  As for a possible redirect, I looked at the proposed target and ended up nominating that as well.  -- RoySmith (talk) 17:40, 2 October 2018 (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.