Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark L. Feinsod (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 Incubate/Userify. Courcelles (talk) 02:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark L. Feinsod

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

Contested prod. Article appears to be a fluff piece for a non-notable film maker. No reliable sources provided and none found outside of social media sites. TN X Man 19:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My edit-conflicted AfD read as follows: Non-notable advertisement for a filmmaker. No visible references. Contested PROD. No consensus at previous AfD over four years ago, that's long enough to incubate. Also, its recent autobiographer Feinsodville (talk · contribs) has been blocked indefinitely. I have flagged it {{db-g11}}. — Jeff G. ツ 19:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minimal coverage, even less when Wikipedia and imdb mirrors are removed, none of which amount to the sort of coverage required to meet WP:GNG. COI editor has not bothered to add references. Nuttah (talk) 20:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Five years since the first AFD and still not properly sourced. Looks like vanispamcrufterisement. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since the last AfD, we have sharpened the rules for BLPs. This is a completely unsourced BLP. It is filled with red links of his non-notable films. 'Delete. Bearian (talk) 21:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not Incubate? While in in total agreement that the article requires cleanup and sourcing to remain n mainspace, it looks like this one could be deleted simply because of WP:NOEFFORT. Since his work as director does get positive review, and non-notables do not, why not take it from mainspace and send it to WP:Incubation for cleanup... and encourage that the articles about this person in The New York Times, New York Post, et.al. be used for sourcing? If it does not get done, it won't be returning to mainspace and will be deleted anyway, and so no loss to the project for giving it one last chance. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because it has had five years of incubation and it still stinks. If you think it would be a simple matter to bring it up to snuff, please go ahead and do so. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I do understand its five years forgotten in mainspace, the changes made to BLP, and have no issue with it being sent to AFD. Sadly, I had never heard of the subject (or many, many others) before it (and they) got sent to AFD..... but as fixing what I can is what I do... I am willing to tackle the problem. As I do have other projects ongoing and a life away from these pages, I request that it might be userfied to me at User:MichaelQSchmidt/workspace/Mark L. Feinsod so I can give the attention over the next week or three that it has sorely lacked. I could then check back with the nominator, and if he agrees, move a fixed version to Incubation for review by other editors. If it's better, it might return. if not, then it's gone. A win-win for all. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fair. — Jeff G. ツ 19:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would support this, but only because Michael is one of the few who would make a suggestion like this and actually follow up on it. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me too. TN X Man 20:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are gonna make me blush. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:59, 18 June 2010 (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.