Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark A. Cooper (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. Overall consensus seems to suggest that, while possibly borderline, the levels of notability demonstrated through reliable-source coverage are insufficient for an article at this time. ~ mazca ^talk 00:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark A. Cooper (author)

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

Non notable. Self-published author who has managed to hype himself but not yet reach mainstream notability. Only sources are minor local newspapers and database sites that list everything submitted to them, notable or not. Currently this article is essentially just a self-promotional space for the author. If his work ever has true mainstream notability then we can have a Wikipedia article. DreamGuy (talk) 18:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this has been part of a concentrated effort on the part of the author, or people working on his behalf, to insert promotional material about himself (a minor self-published author) into Wikipedia. There has been a history of falsehoods put forth surrounding both him and his "hit" book to try to make the subjects appear more important than they are. MikeWazowski (talk) 23:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - if the guy can pull off a good Kirkus review for his book, he may be edging toward notability, whether or not he has used WP inappropriately in the past. If Steed sinks without any more ripples, we can revisit this in the future.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are of course correct past misuse (real or imaginary) should have no bearing on this, it's a question of if the material is appropriate for wikipedia and therefore enhances it. However you seem to suggest he hasn't reached notability in which case surely it's a deletion now and potential restoration where that "edging towards" become "just reached". It's quite possible that an author's book reaches notability without the author becoming notable - the Kirkus review is of the book and the book alone. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Past history of abuse notwithstanding, it seems he's gotten some press for his writing, even if that is through relentless self-promotion VASterling (talk) 18:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Query Is Sourcebooks self-publishing? I don't know that one. Peridon (talk) 19:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Infinity, the original publisher, was self-publishing, but Sourcebooks seems to be a step up from that. They publish a lot of PD reprints.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep On the basis that he's now professionally (what is the opposite of self-published?) published. I don't think all that many manage to cross over. Peridon (talk) 22:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And how does that meet the notability criteria? If it's unusual and the world at large takes note of that, then it'll be written about in reliable sources. Which is the point of the notability guidelines to remove the issue of notability away from what you or I think is important and into the realm of what the world does. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I originally worked on this. Most of the newspaper articles have been removed, they say it could have been another Mark Cooper. One of them had a picture of the author? How could that be another Mark Cooper if it shows a picture of him? Anyway I found another article on his work, this time in Scotland, a registered charity site Young Scot, it gives a review of 2009, best website, best book and so on. It names us (Wikipedia) and the Jason Steed book. http://www.youngscot.org/e-zine/?ss=66&s=113&sr=198&ID=27905 maybe not notability again, but if we find him in newspapers around in England, Scotland, USA, every book website that exists, KIRKUS reviews and he seems to be winning awards, indie, fiction reviewer, how long do we ignore for? Just my 2 cents worth.(Oliver Spy Fan (talk) 03:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC))— Oliver0071 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The references removed were trivial coverage (they weren't about him just noting him at the person involved or quoting him) so wouldn't be useful for notability purposes. One may have had a picture, but wikipedia editors evaluating pictures to say this is/isn't the same person is a pretty hit and miss way of doing it. How long do we ignore it for? Well how long does the mainstream media ignore it for? We aren't here to make the discovery that no one else is willing to make. So far there have been no substantive independant writing about him. Many book websites (Not all by any means and mostly blogs in this case) simply review whatever is sent, there is no discrimination, so inclusion indicates nothing. Kirkus reviews on a similar basis, they do however have a stronger criteria and as such are a more compelling source, but one on it's own doesn't show much and indeed they review 1000 upon 1000 of books every year. It doesn't make the book notable, less so the author. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 11:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:I have re-added two newspaper articles about the author, which had mysteriously disappeared fom the article. One of his books has also won, and been a runner-up in, two awards - but those details have mysteriously disappeared too..-- Myosotis Scorpioides 13:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

from what I remember from the AFD for the book, the awards were not considered notable. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting the added source [1]: "His book has taken the place of rival teen agent Alex Rider and is currently number thirteen on Amazon. Now Pinewood Studies have shown an interest and will produce ‘Fledgling Jason Steed’ the movie in the summer of 2009." So why can't we find anything about this movie? Why is he currently ranked around 400.000 on Amazon? [2]. This obvious bullshit, so I am removing the source again. Yoenit (talk) 15:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It also claims he was then under contract to write 3 more, whereas he didn't even sell the rights to the first one (and the subsequent) until the following year. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The second source added to the article is apparently from the Sunderland Echo, but for some reason I can't find the article online [3], while the newspaper publishes their articles on their website. Quack quack? Yoenit (talk) 15:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your Quack Quack comment. Anyway, the article is not on line - hence the reference to the date of the story. A copy was added to, and accepted by, Commons a few weeks ago.[[4]] However, it was deleted after a number of editors (some listed here I believe) claimed it added nothing to the Wikipedia project. The story isn't a fake as you claim, and should be added back.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 16:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was apparently never listed -- added to today's log. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of that, for I was not involved in any earlier discussions about this article. It's back in the article now. I assume you agree with my assessment of the other reference?. Yoenit (talk) 20:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for putting the Echo one back - the article appeared, period. (Although I think I'm fighting a losing battle, cos it has just been taken out again). As to your question - the answer is yes - after seeing your summary, I do agree with removing the other newspaper quote as it is pretty trivial (not to mention inaccurate).-- Myosotis Scorpioides 23:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't understand why the Center spread of the Sunderland Echo has been removed yet again. This is not a story on Cooper, but a story on Twilight, Harry Potter, Robert Muchamore's YA books and a story on the succes of Mark A Coopers book. It never mentions awards. It's a notable article, but for some reason has been removed again and again without reason. Other than 82.2.40.7 explaination that it was removed before, but only by himself. While the 'Talk' is going on, it should at least be listed for it can be 'talked' about.(Oliver Spy Fan (talk) 04:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

FWIW that wasn't one of the references I was referring to and haven't removed it. My reply was to yours which said "...could have been another Mark Cooper", which were the ones I was referring to, the ones which just specified a name and made no mention of writing books etc. The Sunderland Echo article I don't give much weight to (restricted locality of distrubution, circulation of <0.1% of the national population etc.), but that doesn't mean it is invalid for the article --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re the awards. The relevance of these is marginal at best. I won a colouring competition as a child from a major toy maker, means nothing of course, the nature etc. of the competition/award is a factor. If anything they would contribute to the notability of the book, where they weren't considered particularly persusive (given it didn't win one and the other seemed to be at least in part promotional (indeed it's a paid award where the organisers stated benefits of entering is promotion). --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO - The coverage is trivial (going off the sources actually used in the article). --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All I see is one article in a local newspaper, which fails my interpretation of the WP:GNG. Yoenit (talk) 14:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable author, and the persistent and increasingly desperate Wikipedia spam campaign doesn't exactly help any either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how Mr Cooper himself has been involved in this as you state. Does anyone know if he is even aware of this discussion or page? (Oliver Spy Fan (talk) 04:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I went digging a bit and found this [5]. I am not sure if it ever was established that it was Cooper himself (haven't read most of it), but there was definitely somebody trying to promote this guy and his book on wiki (and elsewhere, see the reviews here. Yoenit (talk) 09:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Someone is desperate enough to spam this book that they created several sockpuppet accounts to do so. Simple logic tells us that nobody other than Cooper, or someone acting under his instructions, would have any motive whatsoever to do that. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think editors should be really careful before making statements such as "nobody other than Cooper, or someone acting under his instructions, would have any motive whatsoever to do that." You have no proof of this. Therefore such statements are spurious at best, potentially libellous at worst. Why can't this AFD just be decided on reasonable arguements, rather than descending into what amounts to playground arguements?-- Myosotis Scorpioides 15:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Spy Fan asked for elaboration and was duly given it. And while we're on the subject, while Oliver's user page explicitly claims they're not Cooper ("I have so far made one page, for my favorite author") and strongly implies they're a kid ("Wikipedia is an awesome tool for homework"), I note that their first edits were to promote a self-published book about watches by none other than... Mark A. Cooper! How interesting. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability for authors is two books published by major publishers. Infinity does not appear to qualify as one. Critical coverage is all trivial. Off with it, Sven Manguard _Talk 00:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcebooks have agreed two books. Plus Turkish book publishers Artimise http://www.publishersmarketplace.com/login.php/cgi-bin/dealmaker.pl%3Fid%3D12949 have agreed to publish a revised translated version of Coopers Jason Steed series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oliver0071 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - just plain doesn't meet the standards. Assertions to the contrary seem to be based on misunderstandings of what constitutes notability, or more credence than I'm willing to give to a bunch of poorly sourced assertions of movie deals and the like; plus some pretty obvious sockpuppets, meatpuppets or naive fans. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - based on the above {{find}} search, and the references included in the article, it seems there isn't significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 15:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we ignore the newspaper articles and major publishers, A kirkus review is an RS. (Oliver Spy Fan (talk) 15:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Do you mean this review? While it's better than nothing, I don't consider that it provides significant coverage about the author. PhilKnight (talk) 16:12, 15 October 2010 (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.