Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Windows

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.

Mark Windows

Mark Windows (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)

I am unable to find significant third party coverage of this individual per

• I suspect I should jump the gun and delete under
  original research claims about living persons. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• How is it original research? The archive.org links were sent to me, they are in the public domain and have been viewed by numerous people. BM85194 (talk) 14:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They are interpretation of primary sources. We can't take a statement from someone and describe it as antisemitic, we have to get a professionally-published secondary or tertiary source that identifies the statement as antisemitic. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I will work harder to get him exposed in a primary source. BM85194 (talk) 14:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

secondary or tertiary sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete and bordering on
  talk) 16:54, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I've removed several sections. No longer a case of
    talk) 16:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete - I see absolutely nothing here that allows him to even
  a publisher of any primary sources. Using us for profit purposes jeopardizes out charity status. Bearian (talk) 16:00, 22 August 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.