Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark W. Smith

: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 keep. whether or not to merge him with his books is an editorial decision that doesn't require continued AfD discussion. There's clearly no-consensus to delete. TravellingCari 12:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

=[[Mark W. Smith]]=

:{{la|Mark W. Smith}} ([{{fullurl:Mark W. Smith|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark W. Smith}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Started by an IP in 2004. No assertation of notablity and no sources (aside from his own book). A google search for "Mark W. Smith" turns up 19,000 of mostly unrelevant hits. He has two books (2004, 2006) of unknown importance. Also up for deletion is his 2004 book Official Handbook of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, which doesn't have a single source either.

:Redirects: Disrobed: The New Battle Plan to Break the Left's Stranglehold on the Courts, The Official Handbook of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, and Mark W. smith.We66er (talk) 02:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Non-notable, and both articles seem to be written to promote his book. Redddogg (talk) 12:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has more Notes than votes. RMHED (talk) 19:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep His book - Official Handbook of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy was a New York Times bestseller [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0307339254/sr=8-1/qid=1150975691/ref=pd_bbs_1?_encoding=UTF8] and therefore meets WP:BK. As for the article on Mark W. Smith, he is notable under WP:CREATIVE, bullets 3 and 4 as well as meeting the basic criteria at WP:BIO for notability. For the third and fourth bullet points, his book was a New York Times bestseller. For the basic criteria, he "has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." He has been interviewed on CNN [http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/29/acd.01.html], Fox News[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,322910,00.html] (both about subjects other than his books), by the CPAC director at Human Events [http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=15711], is described as a "prominent free-market conservative" by the National Journal [http://www.nationaljournal.com/conventions/print_friendly.php?ID=co_20080903_4694], --Philosopher Let us reason together. 03:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Philosopher Let us reason together. 03:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep per Philosopher. Manhattan Samurai (talk) 15:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Speedy Keep per the reasons given by Philosopher. JasonDUIUC (talk) 01:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep- because of the points raised by Philosopher. Reyk YO! 01:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep--but boy that article needs cleaning up. I'll take punctuation, who's got the rest? Drmies (talk) 01:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge/Redirect both books into Mark W. Smith. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

: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.