Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Potok (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 delete. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 08:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Potok (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Delete: non-notable flack for controversial organisation, without which Potok would have no notability whatsoever. Quis separabit? 11:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• comment He is a professional spokesman for a notable organization. Let's try to keep this clean.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a subject who crosses the verifiability and notability thresholds. Non-NPOV terms like "flack" are neither helpful nor determinative when discussing a subject's notability. The SPLC's notability is unquestioned so any "controversy" is also not remotely relevant to this discussion. - Dravecky (talk) 08:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lots of ghits, but in all the ones I clicked on, he serves as a spokesman for the Southern Poverty Law Center, news media quote him, they don't write about him. A spokesman for an NGO certainly could be notable, but the only way to establish that would be for journalists or academics to write articles about him, articles that, as WP:GNG puts it: "addresses the topic directly and in detail". His birth and childhood are sourced to his father's memoir/autobiography. This is not evidence of notability. He is a polarizing figure, political bloggers sometimmes attack/support. but The closest thing I can find to RS that is about him is a source brought in the previous (no consensus) AFD, this phrase: "Potok, a resident of the South for 16 years."[1] It's just not enough.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No significant sources about him. It would be considered normal for a spokesperson to be speaking, even on things like Democracy Now. LaMona (talk) 04:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Came back for a 2nd look. Only 2 sources are about him. The first is his father's autobiography. The second is a newspaper announcement of a talk he gave in in Vermont, and the only personal detail is the fact that he grew up in Vermont. There is simply not enough material here - or in other RS - to source an article. The outfit he works for is notable; he is not.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2015 (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.