Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Sutherland

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. everyone agrees. DGG ( talk ) 23:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Sutherland

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

Non-notable author lacking non-trivial support. References are mostly examples of his articles of one line quotes. His books are generally non-notable minor works. reddogsix (talk) 01:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Incorrect assertion as references are from a variety of news sources including the UK Telegraph, US regional television, four publications under two different publishing houses, and a variety of other third party sources. Some are the authors own work, and others are news sources reporting on Sutherland. Please clarify your concerns accurately. AlexanderJamesScotland —Preceding undated comment added 01:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Not sure what is incorrect about trivial coverage statement. Review of References

1 Amazon book – lacks independence.

2 Amazon book – lacks independence.

3 Publicity notice – not in-depth article

4 Publicity notice – not in-depth article

5 A couple of quotes from article subject. Trivial

6 A single quote from the article subject. Trivial

7-12 Not about the subject, just examples of subject’s video -

13 Linkedin - Primary Reference, lacks independence.

14-18 Not about the subject, just an example of subject’s work.

Again, the article lacks independent, secondary, verifiable references. reddogsix (talk) 01:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

""Comment-""

Disgree. Articles in Telegraph always require editorial review as it is a reputable news publication. Book listings are not Amazon books, they are via reputable publishing companies. Amazon listings reflect that. Neither of the so-called publicity notices are that. They are independent news coverage of a business announcement. Quotes of Sutherland in news articles are designed to give a referenced example of his work as a spokesperson. He was the spokesperson for controversial organizations for more than 10 years, certainly not trivial. Videos are to give examples of his regular appearance in regional media representing Scottish and British interests in the US. Agree that awards listings should be removed, as it is on a page created by the subject. Published news articles by the subject are included to show that a major news outlet has verified his status and publishes his work. AlexanderJamesScotland —Preceding undated comment added 14:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What you have outlined above amounts to trivial coverage. Just because something requires and gets editorial review does not mean the coverage is of substance. A listing in Amazon is just that and is not about the subject - there are many authors that are listed in Amazon that are no considered as notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Your comment, "He was the spokesperson for controversial organizations for more than 10 years, certainly not trivial" does not demonstrate his notability per Wikipedia guidelines - if you believe so, cite the specific guideline. Regular appearance is not a demonstration of notability - notability is not a measure of popularity, but rather of support for Wikipedia guidelines. Find an in-depth article about the subject and I will be convinced otherwise. Nothing there is in-depth. reddogsix (talk) 16:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost none of the sources are independent. They are in some way connected to Sutherland, and thus don't show independent notability. Sutherland writes for the Telegraph, simply being a writer is not notable. Sutherland publishes books, simply publishing books is not notable. Notability is when someone receives attention from independent sources. For example, a New York Times book review, or an interview in the LA Times or BBC, etc.. coverage without a connection to the subject. See WP:NOTE for more information on how notability works at Wikipedia. -- GreenC 17:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

""Comment"" GreenC. Thanks for the information on notability. After review, I agree with the current assessment and I will be deleting the page. AlexanderJamesScotland —Preceding undated comment added 18:36, 24 January 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.