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. Most of the keep !votes that are not socks appear to be confusing this person with Mark Burnett (executive producer) of Survivor, who is undoubtedly notable. Stifle (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Burnett (producer)[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

Director is non-notable thus far; has only directed one film (not to be confused with Sleeper (2009 film)), which also appears not to be notable so far. Local newspaper source helpfully notes local boy starting out on his career. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is a producer who just so happenes to also have director and writer credits. He has more notability than many articles i have seen on wiki. If you dont know who he is then you are not quallified to review on this topic.Makro (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP He is well know in the industry and has worked on many TV sets.90.214.105.156 (talk) 22:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Katie Jarvis Danny Lloyd Klinton Spilsbury Carrie Henn (actress) Robert Arkins. All these are as equal in their natability and they all have articles. If they quallify then so does Mark Burnett (producer).Makro (talk) 22:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate !vote. See also WP:OTHERSTUFF. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. I can't find anything about his one film, Sleeper, other than its IMDb entry - which helpfully notes that the film had a £1,000 (!) budget. Korny O'Near (talk) 23:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The budget on IMDB states £10,000 not £1,000.Makro (talk) 01:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It said £1,000 when Korny left their comment, but it does not matter. It would not matter if some anonymous IMDB user entered _£10 trillon_ as the budget--IMDB is not a reliable source and so is worthless for notability discussions. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Has an IMDB page. Has references. Just because you havent heard of hime doesnt mean he isn't notable. @user:korny. Many films have had low budgets, you cant judge on that one factor.Js46358 (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck blocked sockpuppet. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that there have been some notable films with low budgets, but I thought the budget of this one shed some light on the type of project he's been involved with so far. Anyway, welcome to Wikipedia. Korny O'Near (talk) 04:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as making no case for notability (A7) and possible hoax (G3). I've found no RS evidencing that this subject even exists. [Note: This person is not Mark Burnett (executive producer) of Survivor fame.] Sources provided are to purported subject's purported website, a user-generated IMDB page, and two Wakefield Express cites that don't seem to exist. There is no claim that the one extant film was ever released and no reliable sources to suggest that it was ever made. Considering how small a body of work is listed, I suppose it is possible that the subject had time to pick up a Cambridge astrophysics doctorate, although it is wholly unsubstantiated. But, even if this article were true in all its particulars, there is nothing to suggest that subject is anywhere close to being notable. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 18:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Notability is made clear. Has an IMDB page that proves his notability. DSmith2014 (talk) 18:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck blocked sockpuppet. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've kept my multitude of complaints regarding Articles for creation to myself thus far. This is a good poster child for those concerns. This article was thrown out onto the encyclopedia through that process with no regard for how disruptive it would (and has) become. Without spending a whole lot of time, it's pretty easy to figure out that the other Mark Burnett is the primary topic for not only "Mark Burnett" but also "Mark Burnett (producer)". Instead, that article has been relegated to a rather hideous disambiguation title, to say the least. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also noticed that this article came through AfC, and I looked up the approving editor with the idea of offering some advice. But it was actually the article creator who moved it from AfC to mainspace. For any of its faults, AfC is voluntary, so I don't think it can be blamed for this one. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Concern Two editors both voting keep with similar wording have come here for their first ever WP edits, User:DSmith2014 and User:Js46358. I find this quite worrying. Boleyn (talk) 09:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails verifiability. IMDB is not a reliable source. I can find no evidence for the existence of teh film or this producer. That's not to say that they don't exist, but rather, the coverage is so slight that even unreliable sources are sparse. -- Whpq (talk) 13:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Notablity is confirmed. As user:makro satates, there are many other bio pages that contain less information that stay on wikipedia.Paddyallen (talk) 15:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck blocked sockpuppet. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's great to see so many people creating accounts just to express support for keeping this article! And all with such similar writing styles, too... I hope you all continue to contribute to Wikipedia. For this particular argument, though, see WP:OTHERSTUFF, as noted above. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article is very familiar to me - I nominated Mark Burnett (Producer) for speedy deletion in November and subsequently nominated its recreation, Mark Burnett (producer) for deletion in December. This is the third creation of this article! Burnett is, to be charitable, not notable yet, considering he is very young and has an entire career ahead of him. There's no evidence his one film is notable and little evidence of news coverage about him, apart from two possible entries in his local newspaper. I would recommend the article is salted too, preventing further re-creations. Sionk (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. No evidence of notability and someone and their socks are trying just to hard to keep what is essentially a vanity page. If they can't aspire to their own proper web site then Wikipedia is certainly not their web host either. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:29, 25 January 2014 (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.