Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Capri

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Capri

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

Non-notable person. No significant roles, just bit parts in episodes and a movie role that, as the article itself makes clear, was of no consequence. Largoplazo (talk) 11:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weakish delete - I managed to find quite a few mostly passing mentions (e.g., WaPo, NYT, HuffPo, Encyclopedia of Motion Picture Sound, some... book), but really nothing with any depth to it. If someone could dig up just a few sources with in depth coverage, combined with the many passing mentions, there could probably be an article to be written. But I don't think the stuff I've found on it's own is enough to work with. GMG ^talk 12:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:12, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:12, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. The fact that we have sources that prove he landed some roles is simply evidence that he's competent at his job. This isn't the Who's Who Site of Everyone Who Is Employable and Isn't Incompetent. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 06:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Total failure to meet notability guidelines for actors. These exist because of the huge amount of routine coverage of people involved in notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:38, 23 October 2017 (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.