Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Tufo


 * 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Mark Tufo

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Insufficient notability for this wiki, does not conceivably meet WP:AUTHOR. That it's a WP:COI mess from the start doesn't exactly help, either. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northern Antarctica (₵) 23:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Now it's quite possible I don't meet the stringent Author requirements, that's debatable but as far as COI goes, I removed one date (my birth year) And attempted to add one more possible film deal which was automatically removed so to say that this was a huge COI would be incorrect. I've got a catalog of over twenty books and have sold over 500k copies, electronically, audio or paperback. I'm not breaking any records there, but it is certainly noteworthy. Mark Tufo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Tufo (talk • contribs) 00:01, 9 April 2014‎


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Speedy Keep There appears to be enough sources to satisfy the general notability guidelines. (Although more is always better.) Mark Tufo is currently blocked for sockpuppetry (so he can't edit this page anymore.) He also satisfies #4 of WP:AUTHOR, due to the 500,000 books he's sold. Ging287 (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC) It appears that Mark Tufo has been canvassing votes. I rescind my edit and replace it with remove instead, per OP's argument. (Still new to AfD processes.) Ging287 (talk) 13:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You say "There appears to be enough sources", but you don't tell us what or where those sources are. Simply saying "there are sources" is not enough. Sources have to be verifiable, and we can't verify them if you don't tell us where they are. You also say that he has sold 500,000 books. That is an astonishingly high number, and I would expect any author who has sold that many books to get considerable coverage, but I have searched, and found no source anywhere that says anything remotely like that, except the author's own claim above. Do you have a reliable source for that figure? Also, you say "500,000 books", but what Mark Tufo says is "500k copies, electronically, audio or paperback". Does "copies" mean "copies of books"? An author I personally know has a huge number of downloads of his work, but most are sample chapters, tasters, free samples, loss leaders sold for a few pennies, etc, with the number of actual books he has sold being a tiny fraction of the total download figure. Without clearer information it is not safe to make assumptions as to what "copies, electronically, audio or paperback" means. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Keep Its hard for an Indy author to prove their notability (to WP's satisfaction) because they don't get the kind of coverage or support from their publishers that a mainstream author gets. But that doesn't mean one can't be notable. I think Tufo is notable on the basis of the sheer number of reviews his books have received and the activity on his facebook page. Is he a Big Deal? Not exactly. But that doesn't mean he is not notable.--&#42;Kat* (talk) 07:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Rightly or wrongly, Wikipedia's notability criteria are based mainly on getting substantial coverage in independent sources, so saying that people in a particular category find it hard to get coverage amounts to saying that people in that category are unlikely to satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria. You are free to try to get the notability guidelines changed if you like, but this discussion will be assessed on the basis of the present version of those guidelines, and your first sentence is an argument that he does not satisfy those guidelines. You then go on to refer to "the sheer number of reviews his books have received", but you don't give us any indication where any of those reviews is, nor do you indicate what sort of "sheer number" is involved. Can you cite some specific examples? Also, "sheer numbers" is not enough unless they are in reliable independent sources: for example, reader-submitted "reviews" on Amazon are of no value. Finally, "the activity on his facebook page" is of no value whatever in establishing notability, as Facebook is not a reliable source. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete There is no evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Only one of the sources in the article may possibly be independent, and that one is of dubious reliability. The first couple of pages of Google hits are full of such things as Facebook, blogspot, Goodreads, Twitter, Wikipedia, sites selling his work, sites existing to promote authors' work (e.g. www.independentauthornetwork.com), and so on: a striking lack of anything that could be regarded as an independent reliable source. As I have indicated above, the attempts by other editors to suggest that he is notable are either unsubstantiated, out of line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, or both. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: Tufo has requested on his Facebook page that fans contest the deletion of the article (which he himself requested someone create for him, in the same venue). Whilst AFD is not a vote (and I've put the usual notavote template at the top of this page to emphasise that) note that this AFD may see a number of SPA votes due to such off-wiki canvassing. Yunshui 雲 水 12:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete, no serious reviews or media attention, nothing but blogs, bookseller sites &c.TheLongTone (talk) 23:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Keep While the man might not be on the New York Times Best Seller list he has written some very popular books. Being self published he doesn't have the reach that many other authors have, which is why there aren't as many independent sources mentioning him (note: I commented out the unsourced accolades in the article at one point), but that doesn't mean his entry doesn't belong here. Disclaimer: I do follow him on Facebook and saw he was having trouble with his entry so I offered publicly to try and clean it up and make it closer to the standards here. I state this in interest of full discloser. I have had an account here far longer than I've even known of his existence so there is no sock-puppetry or back channel dealings involving me. FyreFiend (talk) 03:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * FyreFiend has made only one edit on any other topic since January 2012. 217.158.67.179 (talk) 16:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said above to another editor, you are free to propose changes to the notability guidelines, but as they stand at present, what you say is not a reason for keeping: you say "there aren't as many independent sources mentioning him", which is the whole point. Thank you for being open about how you come to be here. However, the fact that your account has existed for a long time does not alter the fact that you are here as a result of canvassing. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 06:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Small point of order: I am involved with trying to improve the article because of his Facebook post but not on Wikipedia in general because of it. I'm not trying to break any rules. I'm being upfront as to how I found out about the article, I did not create my account to try to sway the consensus, nor would I create secondary accounts. I'm just a member who is interested in his writing who thought I might be able to help improve the article. Seeing as it seems that this article is doomed to be deleted I retract my "keep" FyreFiend (talk) 18:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Getting 974 votes in a Goodreads contest is not one of the WP:BIO criteria. No significant third-party RS coverage whatsoever. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:17, 11 April 2014 (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.