Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Allen Baker


 * 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.  Sandstein  10:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Mark Allen Baker

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I'm genuinely struggling to think over the consistent blatant COI SPA accounts that have been consistently maintaining this article over the past 13 years, but I don't think there's quite enough to meet NAUTHOR. I found a couple of reviews in unremarkable publications. He's done some work, but I'd expect significantly more coverage to establish notability, particularly given that, according to our article, he has published hundreds of articles and over 25 books, drawn considerable attention to his work, has the distinction of being the only person to serve the International Boxing Hall of Fame as an author, historian, chairperson, sponsor, volunteer, and biographer. (I wonder why), his book even hit #1 on Amazon's List of Hot New Releases in Boxer Biographies-the book also hit #1 New Release in Jewish Biographies in December 2017. and don't worry, because he's an active member of the community &c &c &c ... Eddie891 Talk Work 23:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

*Speedy delete per WP:G12. I suspect that most of the article was written by the subject. Large swathes of content were taken and replicated verbatim from the "about the author" of his books. It appears to take little selections from each one (some are more egregious than others). I realise this action wouldn't settle the notability question, but for what it’s worth, I agree with the nominator. Subject doesn't meet NAUTHOR. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Canvass alert: I saw this article thanks to the nominator raising it in a public chat. That said... delete, barring substantial improvements (I might have given the maintainers a week or two with a notability tag before AfD'ing, but I doubt it would have helped much).  Everything is referenced to primary sources or irrelevant - the Connecticut Magazine link about Revolutionary era spies is dead, but even if it was up, who cares?  If it backs up that list of spies, that doesn't mean Baker's work here was notable.   The only non-primary source is an offline (and thus uncheckable) link that references the claim Baker "was active in the central New York music scene" during his undergraduate years at college.  Who cares, that's true of thousands of people, "being active" doesn't show notability.  On the off chance Baker really is notable, there need to be independent sources discussing Baker or his work - stuff like a book review of one of his 12 published works, and not a book review made by a blog or random Internet personality or the like.  SnowFire (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. The maintainer of the article has since added a bunch of sources, but...  the vast majority are citing Mark Baker.  That's still a primary source.  The few references that don't cite Baker directly I can't verify - the link is to just the front page, not to the specific book review itself.  Even if the link was fixed, these websites appear to be low tier sources, the equivalent of minor boxing fansites.  The problem with primary sources hasn't been fixed.  SnowFire (talk) 21:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, alarming lack of RS. The Hartford Courant article was written by the subject himself. Caro7200 (talk) 11:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * G12 doesn't apply if the author themself is the one putting the content on Wikipedia. You can't infringe your own copyrights, and Wikipedia actively encourages donating such material under a free license.  On the off chance that this author is notable, the copyvio isn't a concern assuming Baker was involved in or otherwise approves of this Wikipedia article (which he surely is, given the depth of minutiae only Baker or his close friends would know).  SnowFire (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, SnowFire. Without a public disclosure that this was released to us, can we conclusively say that this was done by Baker? For all we know, it’s an ardent fan and follower of any social media channels. I'm not saying that's true; just that it’s possible. I'm really new to the AfD process, so set me right I'm wrong! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The WP editor who added those should affirm that they own the rights on the talk page. (If they wanted to be really by the book, they could file an ORTS ticket, but that is probably overkill and a waste of time for an article that is likely to be deleted anyway - just the talk page assertion would be fine for now.)  SnowFire (talk) 21:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I disagree, really. The user in question created another, recently deleted article (which was entirely plagiarised -- 94% on Earwig's tool. I think it stands to reason that this is someone zealous, but I'm not convinced it’s the author. Nor do I think that this user thinks that main space is a user page; they are clearly reading this (your mention that they had added more "primary sources" resulted in them saying they had added secondary and tertiary sources; note that they are still interviews). I'm not convinced of notability, but I could be swayed. The main issue for me right now is this user's penchant for using intellectual property on here and not responding when pressed about it. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Either delete or maybe userfy, as at this point I am convinced that the creator literally thinks that this is a user page. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 21:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete and WP:SALT, per WP:GNG, WP:RS, WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, WP:NOTRESUME, and WP:TNT. In 2007, we could have excused what is blatantly an autobiography; it was created by a SPA and heavily edited by a user who name is a shorter version of the word. 20 years in, everybody knows what Wikipedia is and is not. The references are terrible, the writer has not made a major contribution to literature, and the formatting is awful. We have deleted user pages that have been used for spamming and self-promotion. Even if this person was to become notable in the future, abusing editing privileges must have consequences. Bearian (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:SALT and WP:TNT are incompatible -- 'blow it up and start over' is a different pitch to 'never start again'. Recommending them in the same breath sounds closer to 'dropping policy and essay acronyms that you think make your point' than genuinely making a strong argument. And regarding "Even if this person was to become notable in the future, abusing editing privileges must have consequences", the purpose of an encyclopedia is not to punish people for dumb things they did once. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Userfy and link the author WP:FAMOUS. This is...a messy one. It really does look like the author thinks he's in userspace. I suspect an explanation on what making a page for yourself means may well result in G7 speedy deletion, which would solve our problem for us. I'm currently working on an article that was a PRODded COI mess when I found it, so that firsthand experience with how to rescue such an article is informing my !vote here. (When I first saw this AfD, I put some serious thought to going on a deep-dive for actual information on the author...but I think I'd rather let him decide if he actually wants a Wikipedia page with all that comes with first.) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. The plagiarism issue has not yet been sold, but the sources are still failing to determine any actual notability. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've just gone through the article more closely. Basically everything in the article fails even basic verification; links have no archived version and are hard redirects to main pages (or broken outright). Numerous problems with POV that indicate the subject or someone close to them is involved in the article. The editor started by writing an article filled with statements that break NPOV (and verifiability), and then tried to work backwards from there; the sources are always going to fail here, because they are only serving to provide an illusion of depth, rather than any meaningful content. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As a follow-up, the article's main (and really only) contributor has been banned for undisclosed COI and account sharing. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 04:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * per ImaginesTigers --Jonalia (talk) 01:08, 23 January 2021 (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.