Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Moody

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 merge to OK!. (non-admin closure) --Mdann52talk to me! 08:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Moody

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

BLP of dubious notability. Listed references are networking sites, other Wikipedia articles, IMDb, and mentions in passing. Prod tag removed by creator. --Finngall ^talk 22:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article creator is the subject's wife, as admitted here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finngall (talk • contribs) 00:18, 9 June 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What Finngall says. A quick deletion would be the kindest option. -- Hoary (talk) 13:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Mrs. Moody politely withdrew from her effort after WP's guidelines were pointed out to her. --Finngall ^talk 14:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to OK!, where the subject is already mentioned as its social editor. The references in this article from the Jewish Chronicle and the Evening Standard are reliable but insubstantial - they verify this one fact (and could be used for that purpose in the OK! article) but do nothing more. PWilkinson (talk) 22:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question (primarily to PWilkinson). Is this really a good idea? My first reaction was that yes it was, but then I started to wonder. The article OK! is currently atrocious (which of course isn't your fault). The assertion within it that Moody is the social editor could indeed be backed up with a source; but then every such assertion should be, and the article has a number of them. And presumably all this info will fairly soon become out of date; whereupon a redirect from Mark Moody would I suppose require something akin to "the social editor was Mark Moody as of 2010 and 2013,[source][source] but by 2016 Joe Bloggs had taken over.[source]" My own gut feeling is that the article should name the editor in chief but (in order to avoid obsolescence or the charge of trivia) unless there's an exceptional reason, nobody else. -- Hoary (talk) 01:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given the nature of OK!, its social editor is going to be far more important to the magazine than a similar post on, say, the Financial Times. And the claim in the article that Moody has held the post for fifteen years (most of OK!'s so far) does seem to be true, though quite possibly difficult to verify from reliable sources without SYNTHESIS. I would personally therefore not tend to agree with the charge of trivia, but accept that, as the sources I have pointed out do almost nothing to demonstrate Moody's longevity, they would be pretty ineffective against a charge of obsolescence once he does move on. PWilkinson (talk) 10:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge OK! was launched in 1993. Mark Moody appears to have been social editor throughout, so that "until he moves on" seems inappropriate. I see two altneraives: to keep (and categoise as a British journalist) or merge into OK! I do not know the relationship between the British magazine and various foreign offshoots, but if they are free-stnading magazines, they ought each to have separate articles (or a joint one or joint section in teh existing article). However whatever article emerges on the British edition of OK! could well have a section on staff, inot which this artiucle could be merged. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:36, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 03:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If mister Moody deserves an article then we all do. In all seriousness though, the majority of this content isn't even worth merging. I think a well-cited one sentence addition of his role in the OK! magazine would be sufficient, a bit shy of a merge. Buddy23Lee (talk) 23:21, 18 June 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.