Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Felton


 * 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Mark Felton

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Most of the references are by Felton, not about him, and give the appearance of being there to publicise his work. Several other references are not independent sources, such as pages about him on the web sites of his literary agent, the publisher of a book he wrote and a business selling the book. There are slso at least two "references" which don't even mention him. (Note: The article was created by "Markfelton", who is also responsible for substantially all of the content: other editors have mostly done minor cleaning up.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:44, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Mark Felton's book Zero Night has received (excellent) reviews around the World: Australia, USA, UAE, Scotland, Spain. So he passes my personal interpretation of WP:AUTHOR. Notability does not depend on the pseudonym of the article creator, and neither does it depend on the sources present in the English Wikipedia article on 6 May 2016. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 17:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Which of WP:AUTHOR's criteria are passed by a single book having recieved good reviews? I can't see it myself... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * with that many reviews a seperate book article could be created, a gsearch also brings up some others, just have to look. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * in fact have created such an article here - Zero Night. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as I simply found nothing else better, overall still questionable and nothing convincing. SwisterTwister   talk  05:57, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  05:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  05:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep The article subject passes WP:GNG and passes WP:AUTHOR based on significant coverage in multiple reliable sources including the reviews received here:, , , and . Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (talk) 08:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets WP:AUTHOR in the field of military history, with plenty of independent articles/reviews ie. Japan's Gestapo - "is a bleak and disturbing historical narrative describing an intelligence institution-and indeed, perhaps mankind-at its worst .. this book deals with an issue that is desperately important and has unfortunately been covered up, ignored, and overlooked for a number of years. .. japan's Gestapo addresses a number of incredibly important issues, and Felton is a truly masterful writer; the book is beautifully written, and the prose is incredibly compelling in spite of the uncomfortable and at times disturbing subject matter-with which it deals. .. That being said, this book is not recommended to any reader who wishes to gain insight beyond a visceral sense of the historic wrongdoing of the Japanese. .. There is no question of ambiguity-nearly every American or Englishman portrayed in the book is spoken about in glowing terms ("heroic" and "brave"), while the Japanese are described almost unilaterally as sadistic, cruel, and paranoid. .. In many ways, this book represents a missed opportunity. .. As a reference work and a cautionary tale of how horribly an organization can go astray, the book is invaluable. As an aid in understanding what happened and why-and how future horrors can be prevented-it is sadly inadequate." from the International Journal of Intelligence Ethics(a blocked google page but just do a gsearch to find), "Not for those looking for a cozy fireside New Year read. .. Felton’s grasp of historical facts is compromised, though, when he asserts that their doings reveal a “truly bizarre and sadistic streak rooted in the Japanese character.”" in The Japan Times; Slaughter at Sea - "criminal acts by personnel of the Imperial Navy have largely been overlooked. This oversight is remedied by Slaughter at Sea ..  the book is useful for those with an interest in the Pacific War or the Law of War." in StrategyPage, "Painstaking research by British historian Mark Felton reveals that the wartime behaviour of the Japanese Navy was far worse than their counterparts in Hitler's Kriegsmarine. .. Sixty five years later people should still remember; some actions are too awful to be ever forgotten, ever forgiven." in American Thinker, also reviewed by Ausmarine; The Final Betrayal reviewed by Journal of Military History and World War II; undoubtly more but zzzzs required  Coolabahapple (talk) 17:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Appears to satisfy WP:NAUTHOR with the current references in the article. Indeed, the current article has quite a bit of WP:CITEKILL, which is extremely annoying, and usually points to a weak notability. If kept, the article should be edited to remove all but the most pertinent cites, no more than 2-3 in any one statement.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:14, 16 May 2016 (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.