Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Faulks (3rd nomination)

:{{la|Martin Faulks}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Martin_Faulks_(3rd_nomination) Stats])

:({{Find sources|Martin Faulks}})

No independent verification of notability. Judging from the history, he article has very likely been written by the subject under several SPA accounts. The "sources" used to cite information are all personally tied to the subject (direct interviews, or to his website). There is no independent verification of sales figures for books, his supposed martial arts training (which according to his interviews borders on the unbelievable), any articles he has written, and he is in no way a "prominent Freemason." What he is, however, is a marketing executive, and he has basically added himself to Wikipedia in exactly that peacocky fashion. I am sure he tried this before and was directly told by the Freemasonry WikProject that what he was doing was unacceptable. As an indication, only one of the first page of GHits is not directly a personal link of Faulks', and the second page is already down to debunking fora and blog mentions. Having now discovered this is AfD #3 for this subject, with two prior deletions and likely no substantive change in the article, I'm updating slightly and requesting a delete and salt. MSJapan (talk) 06:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Delete and SALT: Blatant self-promotion by non-notable individual. Google search turned up no mention in serious independent sources. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. I declined the speedy and based on the history can clarify that this is not a recreation of the previous deleted articles. There are several new factors to consider; since the last AFD took place in April 2008, for example, Faulks has published 4 books (I haven't checked the self-publishing status though), and has had articles about him in the Daily Mail [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1348498/Meet-ninja-Norwich-Humble-publishing-clerk-day-fearsome-warrior-night.html], the Sun [http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3358922/Ninja-battles-evil-with-his-mystic-fighting-skills-in-Norwich.html] and the Metro newspapers[http://www.metro.co.uk/news/853040-superhero-fan-learns-ancient-ninja-warrior-skills-so-he-can-fight-crime]. All of these are referenced in the article. In addition, there are brief mentions in the Independent [http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/charles-nevin/charles-nevin-pass-the-salad-cream-ndash-fifties-nostalgia-is-in-2192507.html] and at least one book. [http://books.google.ca/books?id=XEJpanXKaYkC&pg=PA7] and[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2097206/Is-normal-Norfolk-Self-styled-Norwich-Ninja-takes-snow-meditate-just-pair-shorts.html a further long article about the subject from the Daily Mail] that was removed from the article as a reference by the nominator of this article[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martin_Faulks&diff=489906497&oldid=489882340] (I will restore it shortly). Whether this is enough for notability isn't clear, but despite the claims above, there clearly are independent reliable sources about his notability that need to be evaluated. For the record, I oppose Salting; this is a relatively young man who has done quite a lot in the last 4 years since the last AFD; even if he does not meet notability requirements now, he may in the future, and I don't consider a new article once every four years inherently disruptive. --Slp1 (talk) 12:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

::The Daily Mail and the Sun are both tabloids. The stories there are for entertainment-value only. The mentions in the Metro and Independent are brief and unsubstantial, and he is briefly mentioned in the "Acknowledgements" section of the book. As for his books, the "best-selling" one ranks 388,000 on Amazon's sales list. Sorry, but even taken all together, there isn't much to establish notability here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

::::You are right, it isn't much. But just because articles are for entertainment value doesn't mean that shouldn't be considered as evidence of notability, even in the Daily Mail (which is a clear step above the Sun as a tabloid). Actually, he wrote the foreword for the book as well as being mentioned in the acknowledgements. Slp1 (talk) 12:50, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

:::::Funnily enough, I claimed in Afd #2 in 2008 that the top GHits were a website, a blog, some forums, and a LinkedIn profile. That still seems to be the case four years later. The article may have been substantially rewritten, but it has not been substantially referenced to any degree greater than either of the last two AfDs. In both of those other cases, Faulks was creating new users to edit his article. and that seems to be the case again. MSJapan (talk) 17:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

::::::MSJapan, the nature of the top Googlehits is irrelevant for our purposes, as is whether large parts of the article are currently unsourced and who authored this article. (As an aside, I doubt that Faulks is the sole author here, as some fairly critical material has been added at various times.)

::::::What is important for this discussion is whether the guy is notable, and meets the criteria of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Contrary to what you say, the article actually has much better references than in the past, including 4 articles about him in three national newspapers, and a brief mention in another. Here is a further reference, this time from a local newspaper.[http://www.edp24.co.uk/lifestyle/meet_norfolk_s_very_own_ninja_1_772028], and another one from the Brazilian media [http://noticias.r7.com/esquisitices/noticias/pai-de-familia-poe-roupa-de-ninja-e-acha-que-e-heroi-20110120.html]. Let's focus on the discussion at hand, not things from the past. --Slp1 (talk) 17:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Delete, hopelessly promotional, and so are the news articles mentioned above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
• Delete, salt, and block on sight any new editor trying to recreate it. The new version may be just different enough from the old versions to narrowly escape a recreation-speedy, but there are enough literally identical passages in them to exclude the possibility that they could have been written independently by different individuals, so disruptive self-promotional sockpuppetry is obvious. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I say keep it. He has been on tv a few times over freemasonry including the heaven and earth show. I saw this guy on the Russel Howard show and have followed him ever since. In Norwich we call him the Norfolk ninja and you can buy t shirts with him on :)

Anyway he was in the daily mail a few months ago for his meditation in the snow. I think that makes him notable. If that does not that what does? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.151.50.87 (talk) 15:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thinking about I see this man a bit like Norwich Puppet Man who is on wiki after lots of local attention.

• Delete This seems to match the examples mentioned in WP:ROUTINE--"bear in tree" or "local man wins award", except this time it's "local man in snow". I don't see the notability of a self-proclaimed ninja. Papaursa (talk) 02:17, 9 May 2012 (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.