Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Worth


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 20:59, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Mark Worth

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is article is promotional in tone and written by two single-purpose accounts. It was packed full of web links to his books, videos and projects, instead of Wikilinks (because they have no articles). Big chunks look to have been copy-pasted from his own sites, but that could be reverse copyvio since he very l;ikely wrote this himself. The sources do usually namecheck him, but very often that is the full extent of their link to him. There is a fair bit of WP:SYN, virtually no secondary sources about him. Google has remarkably few hits given the laudatory tone of the text. He seems to have founded half a dozen or more organisations, none of which appear to be of any size at all. Guy (Help!) 15:15, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "Invalid criteria" states: "Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics (for example, Google hits..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinn2425 (talk • contribs) 11:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC) — Quinn2425 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Which "Invalid criteria" would that be? Which is an irrelevant question, really, since the actual rationale isn't "few Google hits" but "smaller-than-expected digital footprint given the claims made". --Calton | Talk 14:26, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's own guidelines for "Notability" say that when assessing a person's notability, to "Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics (for example, Google hits". With due respect, I suggest that you familiarize yourself with all of the various criteria.
 * Wikipedia's own guidelines for "Biographies of living persons" say that materials in an entry "must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source." The entry for Worth has dozens of such citations.
 * There are myraid secondary sources about Worth in the entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinn2425 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)  — Quinn2425 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Worth is a very public and active whistleblower protection activist. Little if any of the entry was copy-pasted from his own materials. This entry is not laudatory. It simply describes his work as an activist and journalist. This critique seems strangely personal -- with loaded, pejorative terms such as "remarkably few" and "packed full". How can this editor know how large the organizations that Worth founded are? Transparency International, where he started the whistleblower program, is one largest and best-known NGOs in the world -- and by far the largest organization that focuses on anti-corruption. According its website, the SE Europe Coalition on Whistleblower Protection has more than 30 members in 13 countries. This critique raises random points and is not a credible. This critique includes personal-type comments and its criticisms are not in line with Wikipedia requirements. There is no requirement that organizations are of a certain size. And there is no requirement that X number of Wikipedia pages be linked to another page. Wikipedia has no requirement for X percent of links to be Wikilinks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinn2425 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC) — Quinn2425 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  — Quinn2425 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep -- Nom gives no valid reason for deletion. The tone is irrelevant, the number of wikilinks is irrelevant, whether there's synthesis is irrelevant, and the number of GHits is irrelevant.  Thus the nomination itself fails.  However, the guy clearly meets WP:AUTHOR #1 as his work is very highly cited.  For instance, see this GScholar search on the guy's name in quotes + the word "whistle" to filter false positives.  For whatever reason his work mostly isn't listed there, so it's hard to calculate h-index, but the number of citations is evident.  This is strong evidence for his being respected by his peers, which is what AUTHOR asks for.  Also, there are interviews with the guy, e.g., which, per WP:INTERVIEW, establish notability. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * What "interviews" -- plural -- would those be? And no, interviews where the subject is being asked about something other than themselves don't fall under this (W talked to Mark Worth of the Platform for the Protection of Whistleblowers in Africa about the dangers whistleblowers face). --Calton | Talk 14:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 02:29, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 02:29, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep -- I do not find this article to be promotional or laudatory. Journalist and activists are public people, almost by definition. So, entries about them naturally would discuss how their work impacts politics and society. Also, if the Wikipedia community is all about public information, how can we delete an entry of a person who helps whistleblowers and who does investigative journalism? I agree with the comment that the tone of an entry is irrelevant, that the number of Wikilinks is irrelevant, and that the number of Google hits is irrelevant. The are countless entries on Wikipedia about people and places that do not have zillions of Google hits, but that which people should know about. Nowhere is this listed as a prerequisite for entry -- how "famous" a person already is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michellestone2425 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC) — Michellestone2425 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Primefac (talk) 17:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete One hell of a lot of puffery with little solid backing. --Calton | Talk 14:47, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Comments like "puffery" do not represent a credible comment.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinn2425 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)  — Quinn2425 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Actually, it is, but I notice that you ignored the "little solid backing" part. Nice misdirection. --Calton | Talk 01:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Worth qualifies under "Creative professionals" (#2) because his book on food irradiation is the first of its kind about this technology for the general audience.
 * Says who? I don't see that claim, proof of that claim, or even an argument why such a narrowly drawn "first" is important. --Calton | Talk 14:26, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Worth qualifies under "Any biography" because he won an Investigative Reporters and Editors (IRE) award, which is one of the most prestigious journalist award in the US. Someone continues to tamper with this citation. !-- Template:Unsigned --> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinn2425 (talk • contribs) 11:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC) — Quinn2425 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I don't see that claim, details of the award, proof of that claim, or proof of this particular award's importance or that of the award in general. --Calton | Talk 14:26, 16 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep -- There are no flattering words or editorialization in the entry. Only the work of Worth is presented, just as the work of any other politically active person and journalist/author would be presented. Deleting an entry about a whistleblower protection activist is bizarre and is equal to censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinn2425 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 14 April 2018 (UTC) — Quinn2425 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  — Quinn2425 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep -- There have only been two comments in favor of deletion. The first comment was substantively rejected by the editor "192.160.216.52" -- including the fact that Worth "clearly" meets the author criterion and his work is "very highly cited." The second comment raises no substantive critique. This deletion discussion should be ended. Under Wikipedia's Deletion policy, "Once there is an objection or a deletion discussion, a page may not be proposed for deletion again." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinn2425 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 *  Speedy delete as G12 and G11. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  20:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm amending my comment as I still believe this should be deleted, it's nothing more than a PR piece full of press releases, self-published sources and general fluff. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  15:54, 21 April 2018 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth the page is not a blatant copyvio. No comment on the G11. Primefac (talk) 12:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * To go by the edit history, great chunks of it were copyvios. How much? --Calton | Talk 14:26, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Not really that much, actually, only three paragraphs copied from his website about the awards he's won and the great people he's worked for. Primefac (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Administrator intervention -- I have requested an intervention by an administrator to revolve this. These pro-deletion critiques are random and mean-spirited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinn2425 (talk • contribs) — Quinn2425 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I am an administrator. Guy (Help!) 11:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not wish to get personal. But respectfully, if you are an administrator, then you should know the criteria, e.g. the irrelevance of Google hits, the definition of author, the definition of notability. There is  not even close to being a consensus for deletion. This criticism is random and mean-spirited.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinn2425 (talk • contribs) 12:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)  — Quinn2425 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * An uninvolved administrator will evaluate the consensus here once 7 days have elapsed from this discussion's opening, I would advise waiting for that to happen instead of asking for a speedy conclusion, given that there is a dispute over whether this article should be kept or deleted. Iffy★Chat -- 12:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This entry has been up for nearly 3 years. There has never been a problem. Suddenly, when Worth apparently begins to work on high-profile and controversial whistleblower cases, someone is aggressively editing the entry and wants it to be deleted. In fact, most of recent edits to the entry were to remove details of his work as a whistleblower protection activist and researcher. Almost none of the other sections were edited. Very suspicious. Quinn2425 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinn2425 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC)  — Quinn2425 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Yes, because nobody noticed it. More people have viewed it since this deletion nomination than in the previous month. It averages fewer than ten pageviews per day, probably fewer than five, and at least one of those is probably your Google alert. Guy (Help!) 22:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Once again, this is another completely irrelevant criterion not recognized by Wikipedia as grounds for deletion -- and, which seems oddly personal. Even if you want to consider Google hits, searching "Mark Worth" and "whistleblower" gets you 3,120 hits. Searching "Tom Devine" and "whistleblower" gets you 8,920 hits. These figures are both in the four-digits. Are you saying that the entry for Tom Devine, who is probably the world's longest-serving NGO whistleblower activist, also should be deleted? Quinn2425 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinn2425 (talk • contribs) 07:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)  — Quinn2425 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * See motivated reasoning. And consider whether you, with your 200 edits in 4 years, mostly referencing worth, including one other deleted article, are in a good position to lecture vastly more experienced Wikipedians on our content inclusion policies. Guy (Help!) 08:19, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Dear Wikipedia, I am at a loss for words over the hostile, ad hominem and mean-spirited comments in this discussion. Plainly, these "critiques" have little or nothing to do with the actual content of the entry, but rather some sort of personal feelings regarding the subject of the entry. I hope that a professional-minded administrator or other person with authority can put an end to these hostile remarks. Having said that, the entry has been edited and improved to accommodate some of the other comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinn2425 (talk • contribs) 09:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)  — Quinn2425 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The only person here who displays any personal feelings towards the subject, is you. I doubt any of the others here have ever heard of him before. Guy (Help!) 09:16, 17 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Closing the AfD discussion / Keeping the entry -- Dear Wikipedia, Seven days have passed since this discussion was opened. According to the deletion policy, after seven days, a discussion may be closed and the entry shall not be deleted if there is no consensus in favor of deletion. If anything, there is a close to a consensus for keeping the entry, as most of main points raised by the AfD nominator have been shown to be irrelevant under Wikipedia guidelines. The AfD nominator's comments were not substantially supported by any other editor. The discussion disintegrated into ad ad hominem attacks, which are unhealthy for the Wikipedia community. I request that this discussion be closed today and the AfD tag to be removed. Quinn2425 (talk) 10:10, 20 April 2018 (UTC) — Quinn2425 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * You don't get to close it. You voted on it. That's not how this works. You also tried to vote NUMEROUS times. Lastly, the NUMBER of votes doesn't matter, the QUALITY of the arguments does. I suggest you back away. --Tarage (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 22:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep & WP:SOFIXIT. I think that this page needs an editor with the time to remove the puffery and POV, possibly with some sort of protection of the page. But, I agree with comments and links that the subject satisfies WP:GNG. Ross-c (talk) 06:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd agree if I could find any reliable independent sources. The subject looks notable but is a gifted self-publicist and when you start peeling the layers, pretty much all you find is namechecks and press releases. Guy (Help!) 07:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I very much would like to "back away," as productively suggested by an editor. But there is a great deal of misinformation in the comments that necessitate responses. The latest example is the comment that press releases are used as citations. First, are press releases not permitted by Wikipedia? Second, there are no press release produced by the subject. Third, any press releases used as citations, if there are any, are from credible, independent sources. I am baffled by the comment that there are no "reliable independent sources" in the entry. Among the sources are the UN, European Union, APEC, OECD, Le Monde, New York Times, Deutsche Welle, Der Spiegel and so on. It is my view that this commenter has a personal and/or professional bias against the subject. Quinn2425 (talk) 15:05, 21 April 2018 (UTC) — Quinn2425 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * You have made your views abundantly clear. Obviously you are a friend or associate and take this enormously personally. Nobody else here does. You have no actualt experience of Wikipedia and our sourcing policies, so now would be a great time to leave it to people who do. Guy (Help!) 15:14, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I would very much appreciate knowing an example of a "reliable independent source". Quinn2425 (talk) 15:33, 21 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Szzuk (talk) 17:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The entry for Worth is nominated for AfD, but the likes of Bruce Hildenbrand qualify for having a page? Quinn2425 — Quinn2425 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * See WP:OTHERSTUFF. Guy (Help!) 22:11, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable, lacking in sources, and one specific editor who can't seem to let it go... --Tarage (talk) 22:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

This entry is being considered for deletion, yet these journalists who barely have any record or history are not being deleted? -- Geoff Wolinetz, Buck Wolf, Elijah Wolfson, Paul Wohl. And these are just journalists whose names start with "Wo".Quinn2425 (talk) 08:12, 25 April 2018 (UTC) — Quinn2425 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * If you feel that strongly about them, go here --> WP:AFD. Follow the instructions. Of course, what you do or I do or Wikipedia does with those articles has nothing -- zero, zip, nada, fuck-all -- to do with THIS article. --Calton | Talk 09:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete The clearly apparent conflict of interest and effort to promote Worth are blatant and rather... distasteful. Yes this page should be deleted as it violates the PROMO policy.   We could ~perhaps~ have a WP article about him, but it is not this; nothing like this.  it needs to be rebuilt from scratch. Undisclosed and unmanaged conflicts of interest produces just this kind of content, which damages the integrity of Wikipedia.  Jytdog (talk) 16:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: notability is marginal at best, while the article fails WP:PROMO to the point of being close to G11. Sourcing is in passing and / or WP:SPIP. The amount of advocacy surrounding the page and this AfD discussion makes it a clear "delete" for me. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If you want to delete this whistleblower-related entry, I suggest also deleting these whistleblower-related entries: Jacob Appelbaum, GlobaLeaks, Thomas A. Drake, William Edward Binney, SecureDrop, Public Concern at Work, Tor2web, Sarah Harrison (journalist), Institute for Public Accuracy, Suelette Dreyfus, Stephen M. Kohn and National Whistleblowers Center. Applying the same standard referenced by some of the commenters in this discussion, all of these entries are also promotional. While we are at it, let's delete Whistleblower, Edward Snowden and Daniel Ellsberg. Quinn2425 (talk) 07:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Again -- for the third time -- read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS: this is about Mark Worth, and bringing up any other article means fuck-all. If you actually believe your "suggestions" -- and it's pretty clear you don't -- click on WP:AFD and follow the instructions. Or you could, you know, address the arguments about THIS ARTICLE. --Calton | Talk 08:56, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, 2-3 other commenters and myself in fact have responded to -- and refuted based on Wikipedia's own guidelines -- many of the critiques in this discussion. But whenever I have cited a specific Wikipedia guideline as a rationale for disqualifying a pro-delete comment, it is ignored. Unfortunately, many of the pro-delete people have resorted to personal attacks, snide language, profanity and other anti-social behavior. Not professional in my view. For some reason, the deck is stacked against this entry. The venom in the comments by the pro-delete people is so bizarre, I have to wonder about ulterior motives. By the way, I have made many edits to the entry to try to remove anything that could be perceived as promotional, while also adding more sources. If sources such as the New York Times, Le Monde, United Nations and European Union are not adequate, then I don't see how anyone can have a Wikipedia page. Do what you will.
 * This is my last comment, unless there are more untrue or foul comments posted.
 * In sum, these pro-delete comments are not supported by Wikipedia guidelines:
 * * packed full of web links to his books, videos and projects, instead of Wikilinks
 * * Google has remarkably few hits
 * * puffery
 * * general fluff


 * In sum, these pro-delete comments are not true:
 * * Big chunks look to have been copy-pasted from his own sites
 * * he very likely wrote this himself
 * * virtually no secondary sources about him
 * * none of the organizations he founded appear to be of any size at all
 * * little solid backing
 * * full of press releases, self-published sources
 * * great chunks of it were copyvios
 * Quinn2425 (talk) 09:06, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * While reading WP:OTHERSTUFF, which I note you do not yet appear to have understood, I urge you also to study the difference between the words "refute" and "repudiate". Guy (Help!) 09:46, 26 April 2018 (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.