Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Mahon


 * 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   Keep.  Article needs some work, but that, in itself, is no reason to delete it. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Mark Mahon

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is a blatant puff-piece for a gonna-be-famous-sometime-soon film director, writer and producer; if kept, the article needs a massive tidyup.

I'm not familiar with how film biographies are usually handled, nor with the places to look for coverage, so I don't know whether this article should be kept or not, but it looks to me like someone who doesn't yet meet notability guidelines, but may do so if all his projects take off (see his IMDB entry). I may be completely wrong in this, but I bring the article here because I don't know what's left beyond the hype. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions.   — Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   — Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   — Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   — Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete as either G11 - blatant advertisement created by an SPA, or A7, completely unremarkable person. Collectonian (talk) 03:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: Declined speedy as notability established although it needs cleanup. Mark is an actor and there are several credible sources that can be parsed through. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  04:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, although cleanup is recommended. He appears to have won the top prize for Best Film at the Boston Film Festival last year which suggests notability for a director. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. His film Strength and Honour won 2 other prizes in Boston (including best actor for Michael Madsen), and he also won a prize in AOF  film festival.Caiaffa (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It seems his last film, Strength and Honour, was subject to quite a lot of reviews from all the top papers: the hollywood reporter, the New York Times , Variety , Chicago Tribune , Irish Independent . Also, according to this article , it seems pretty probable that he'll direct a film with Di Caprio.--Aldux (talk) 15:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Those are reviews of the film, which do establish the film as notable (and we already have an article on it). The issue here is the notability of Mahon himself, which is a different issue; the New York Times review, for example, devotes only 30 words to Mahon, blaming him for the fim's alleged banality. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Reviews of the film are sufficient to establish the subject's notability per WP:BIO: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Phil Bridger (talk) 23:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Phil, I think that you have misread that clumsily-worded clause. It refers to a situation where there is a book or a film about the person's work, not to a situation where someone has directed a film themselves. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It also refers to the the case where there are multiple independent periodical articles or reviews of a person's work, as is the case here. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not quite. Multiple independent periodical articles or reviews of a significant or well-known work. Strength and Honour doesn't appear to be either significant or well-known; the newspaper reviews are scathing, and it gets a near-pefect rotten tomato (only only 7% rating at rottentomatoes.com). -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
 * Then the subject is notable for getting scathing reviews and rotten tomatoes. The existence of these reviews is precisely what makes the subject's work "significant or well known". A Wikipedia article isn't a prize for getting good reviews: bad ones are just as valid for establishing notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Phil, you are confusing notability with "significant or well-known", which is something else. The film got a few reviews (mostly short, and all bad so far as I see), but that's enough to establish its notability.  However, when it comes to a bad film, the issue here is not the notability of the film, it's whether the film is "significant or well known". There are lots of bad films produced every year, so being bad isn't of itself particularly "significant" unless it's a spectacular failure, and I don't see any evidence that this one stands out amongst all the bad films. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. I just noticed that I didn't include this word in my previous comments, so here it is in case anyone wants to count votes. The rottentomatoes link provided by BrownHairedGirl adds to the notability of the subject rather than subtracting from it as she seems to be claiming. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. You're still confusing the film with the director; see above.. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but cleanup per WP:VAIN --Ave Caesar (talk) 02:40, 5 May 2008 (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.