Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark William Shaw


 * 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  06:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Mark William Shaw

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable author, fails both the basic requirements of WP:ANYBIO and WP:NAUTHOR. There is a dearth of persistent coverage in third party, independent reliable sources—in both the literature and news outlets—and there is no evidence (hence the unsourced tag that has sat on the page for 18 months) that he has has either been regarded as an important figure or widely cited by peers or successors. Nor is he known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. He has not created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work, and his books have not won significant critical attention. All of which is necessary to pass the SNG, and all of which the article fails to do. —— SN  54129  21:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  ——  SN  54129  21:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  ——  SN  54129  21:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete largely per nom. The subject is an author and conspiracy theorist who seems to have gained little notice or critical reviews from reputable sources. As far as I am able to tell none of their works are independently notable. The page has been unsourced pretty much since its creation, and prior to my stubbing it appears to have been a promotional vehicle for the subject, who also edited the article at various times. Article fails WP:BASIC, WP:V and WP:NOPROMO. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I have a concern in that the article was essentially blanked and then less than an hour later was nominated for AFD. The AFD header states "the article must not be blanked." I believed the AFD process would look better if the article content was restored plus hatted with the AFD header and went ahead with that. I e-mailed the subject about the AFD and explained what he needs to show to establish notability (citing WP:AUTHOR, WP:ENTERTAINER, WP:BASIC, and WP:N). While he does not seem to be technically versed in Wikipedia I suspect he understands the general process of citations as he has a law degree and has written biographies of other people which I used to show how he is part of making those people notable. Hopefully he either knows of citations we can use or is agreeable to that he's not a notable subject. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 06:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I found this coverage of the subject based on the aftermath from this incident.
 * He's had jobs and projects that put his name in the public eye, such as appearing as "Mr. Science" on fifty-two episodes of the Disney Channel program The Scheme of Things but I could not see that it lead to direct notability coverage. There are things such as this poster for sale on Amazon but they are promotional material connected to the subject. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 08:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Claims of concern at the article's so-called blanking (it wasn't) are unfounded as the material was removed with a comprehensive edit summary, viz Stubbing completely unsourced article per WP:V and CITE. Article has been tagged for more 18 months. Also removing list consisting entirely of non-notable books per WP:NOPROMO. At least two of those are direct policy-based concerns, and that is not including any potential BLP issues from uncited material in a biography. ——  SN  54129  13:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I have restored the reveted reversion. ——  SN  54129  13:10, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You don't see reveted reversions restored that way very often. EEng 13:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Generally I would agree with removing unsupported material that does not fit in with the overall narrative of the subject. This person's career has been far more than being an author. In this case, the article was blanked, or stubbed if you want to wikilawyer it, from 528 words covering much of his career to 15 words only mentioning the subject "is the author of more than 20 books."


 * Less an hour later the article was nominated for AFD. That seems in violation of the spirit of AFD which lets people see an article about a subject, despite how poorly it was sourced, while researching/debating the subject's notability. That's why I restored the more complete article and still advocate that it be restored. Should it be sourced? Absolutely, but that's not grounds for AFD much less deletion.


 * It'll hurt your eyes and brain to read but this version of the article from 2009 is nearly 2000 words long and shows several times in his life where he may have attracted verifiable WP:N coverage. I'm not advocating keep because we need to show that the subject is notable. The non-stubbed article gave areas of where people can look for evidence of WP:N. The hard to read 2009 version has more, including the subject's involvement in an incident that lead to Bob Knight finally being fired. Google then easily found one piece of possibly WP:N qualifying coverage here. Google also found that he did indeed seem to be the host of a television show though we need a better source than a poster for sale on Amazon. Being the host of a television show is not in itself WP:N worthy but it shows that the guy was in the public eye enough that there may well be WP:N qualifying coverage. If it's a "keep" it's likely going to be because of multiple incidents of non-substantial coverage, which WP:BASIC allows for. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 20:19, 3 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete This article borders on promotionalism except when we do the needed limit to reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Marginal keep Besides the earlier cited WP:GNG qualifying August 2011 article in the The Star-Ledger I have found this which was published in the September 2001 Indianapolis Monthly and both covers the subject and his opinions/thought about an event.


 * Both articles are WP:GNG qualifying for WP:BASIC with the August 2011 article tilting per WP:N as was written it's nine years later, and updated another eight years later, and thus meeting the "and over a period of time" part of WP:N. It's a marginal-keep in my mind as just two sources have been found and the coverage largely sprung from a WP:1E that the subject was not directly involved with.


 * I have asked the subject if there's more coverage but so far he's not willing to be specific in citing sources we can use. He's frustrated with Wikpedia due to his earlier run-ins with who is also participating in this AFD.[See Kilgallen, sockpuppet, disruptive, and complaint on the help desk] --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 20:55, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't want to off on a tangent as it doesn't directly bear on whether or not the article should be kept. However, I do sadly have to admit that I and multiple other editors have had some bumps with Mr. Shaw over his use of the encyclopedia to promote his books as well as various fringe theories mostly relating to the death of Dorothy Kilgallen. (A handful of others have also been involved in the WP:PROFRINGE pushing there.) The latter issue in particular has been the subject of seemingly endless discussion/drama at WP:FTN and Kilgallen's article talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2020 (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.