Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Conaghan

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. – Joe (talk) 13:44, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Conaghan

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Seeing a small amount of local news mentions but nothing that would indicate this actor is notable. Sam Walton (talk) 01:10, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sam Walton (talk) 01:10, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:46, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:46, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:46, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:46, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Actors are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they list roles — the notability test is not "he has been in stuff", but "he has received reliable source coverage in real media about his performances in stuff". But the external links being linkfarmed here aren't doing that: one is just a Google search for photos of him, which has nothing to do with notability at all; one is from a WordPress blog, which is not a reliable source; one is a theatre's self-published press release about its own production, which is not an independent source; and the only one that is a real media source just mentions his name in an overview of all the casting announcements for a stage production, and is not about Mark Conaghan in any non-trivial way, so it is not enough all by itself. These sources don't make him permanently notable by themselves, and nothing stated in the article body is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 21:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actor. Maybe we are starting to turn the tide against all the articles we have on such, but we have a long way to go.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:34, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: After my initial close, an editor contacted me to say they had been preparing a comment that listed sources not previously discussed, so I have re-opened and am relisting for additional discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 03:31, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe keep. His performances in works are reviewed in the press ([1]), [2]) and even in this journal article: "Adapting Australian novels for the stage: La Boite Theatre's versions of Last Drinks, Perfect Skin, and Johnno.", Joanne Tompkins, Australian Literary Studies, April, 2008, Vol.23(3), p.305(13). He was the main subject of this article in The Queensland Times and this article in The Daily Examiner. From the resume it looks like he was a resident artist at the Queensland Theatre Company which is a professional Australian theatre. There productions are regularly reviewed in the press, so there is bound to be more coverage behind the paywalls of newspaper websites in Queensland. It's a borderline call. I could see people making arguments either way.4meter4 (talk) 11:36, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whilst work he has appeared in maybe notable, I can find no good sources about him.Slatersteven (talk) 11:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inadequate sources for notability of subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:31, 6 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Probably Delete. I added a number of citations to the article so please check if that is sufficient to save the page, but even with them I'm not sure this actor satisfies notability. Cabrils (talk) 05:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep have corrected the filmography, updated theatre work and included details of, and references for, two award nominations. --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:34, 14 October 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.