Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcus Parker (author)

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. KTC (talk) 00:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Parker (author)

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

Promotional piece on author lacking coverage in independent reliable sources. Whilst this initial may look like a well written article a proper look reveals it's problems. It has many sources but none are reliable sources that provide significant about Parker. References appear thrown in to mask a lack of notability. Referencing at time of nomination.

1 listing

2 Yahoo

3 passing mention, doesn't verify claim.

4 not independent, not significant coverage

5 short supplied bio for book fair

6 press release

7 citizen supplied news, not a reliable source, dead link

8 social network, not significant independent coverage about Parker

9 by Parker

10-15 listings and a shop

Due to the misleading nature of the referencing and the lack of caoverage about Parker this article should be deleted. Per WP:5P. "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, ...". This is so clearly a violation of the first pillar and should be blown away. ignore all rules to stop the rot. Stop Wikipedia from being overtaken by spam to preserve its integrity. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agreed, both to the specific and general problems. Spam is now more problematic than vandalism once was. הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 15:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - spam. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The books are self published, and only the first is even in WorldCat--but essentially no libraries. If the recordings are similar, there's no chance of notability. I agree that our greatest current problem is promotionalism. It was an inevitable correlate of growing recognition by the world, and we're stuck with it. DGG ( talk ) 01:47, 7 January 2013 (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.