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. Randykitty ( talk) 11:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Mark Radcliffe (film producer)

Mark Radcliffe (film producer) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER. Previously soft deleted and was re-created. Uninvited Company 20:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC) reply

• It should not be deleted. There are several pages worse than that that are online. There's not much information about Mark Radcliffe, except what already are on the page. It should be maintained. Greenfantasticbeast 16:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 21:24, 20 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 21:24, 20 December 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete, albeit procedural. I was the one who nominated it for speedy this time 'round. I have no thoughts on notability; my only point is that it appears to have been recreated a.) without any discussion, and b.) without any substantial change to what it was before. I have no problem with its being kept if those two concerns are dealt with. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao ^{Che dicono a Signa?} _{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC) reply

• Comment @ Ritchie333: Is this basically the same version you soft-deleted the first time this was at AfD? Would you have deleted it again if it had been tagged for speedy deletion per WP:G4? If you would've, then I cannot see any way of keeping this because despite the WP:OSE type of !vote for keeping this given above. You would think WP:NEXIST would work for somebody credited as producing a number of major films, right? However, I haven't really been able to find anything myself. Maybe redirecting to one of the film articles would be an acceptable alternative to deletion? -- Marchjuly ( talk) 02:54, 4 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Leaning toward delete. Does a producer fall under WP:FILMMAKER? If so, he qualifies for his work on numerous big films, but I tend to think not. As for GNG, Greenfantasticbeast has inadvertently torpedoed Radcliffe: "There's not much information about Mark Radcliffe, except what already are [sic] on the page." Clarityfiend ( talk) 09:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to 1492 Pictures. Producers and executive producers, unlike directors, generally don't receive much coverage, even when they have worked on major films, and this appears to be the case here. I could find several mentions of him producing, or co-producing films, but nothing significant. The most substantial is this from Variety about the production company he formed with Chris Columbus, and a redirect there seems appropriate. -- Michig ( talk) 06:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete I am not finding the WP:ATD Michig proposed good enough here. In that targeted article, Mark Radcliffe is only mentioned by name (founded by). While a valid suggestion, I don't think there is enough there to justify keeping the page history of this article as is. Since there is nothing meaningful to merge somewhere possibly, and nothing else beyond that, it is not what readers would want to look for if they want information about Mark himself. Now regarding the article: Mark fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG by a solid margin, passing mention in a book, bio site and a press release. There is no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources in detail, there are no awards he won that would save this from deletion. Nothing much to find outside of it except passing mentions like the Variety thing mentioned. Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 11:10, 12 January 2019 (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.