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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Worrall[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:Author. Does not meet WP:GNG. Sources do not support content, mention subject not at all, only in passing, or are by the subject. WorldCat shows limited holdings. Nothing at internet book list. Dlohcierekim 15:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Many sources are about his book and not many sources to show information about his life. ///EuroCarGT 23:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there talk to me The Mark Worrall article which was originally started almost six years ago in March 2008 has been regularly updated and maintained in good faith and cross referenced on the internet using Amazon, ^[1] Linkedin to establish business background ^[2] and a significant number of Chelsea FC related websites eg ^[3] recent involvement on TV shows ^[4] and ESPN profile ^[5] The subject has a substantial body of UK library catalogued work. Revisions made on 11th January addressed the point about life information. Taking all the above into consideration to say nothing of the subjects profile, a request is made that the article is no longer marked for deletion. Regards Jacqueline1961 (talk) 09:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article concerns a seasoned author and authority on Chelsea FC, one of the world's leading football clubs. There is a a signifcant body of information on the subject internet to say nothing of Amazon in respect of published works, influence and credibility and this has been included. Agree article needs balancing but deletion would be petty since it has been painstakingly developed over many years as has been pointed out previously KingsoftheKingsRoad (talk) 10:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ In addition to make a statement that there is nothing at the Internet Booklist shows a lack of understanding of what the Internet Booklist is a registry of ie:- fiction as opposed to non-fiction which is the principle activity of Mark Worrall. The Apple iTunes store carries comprehensive details on published works Mark Worrall at Apple Storeand there is a significant amount of information, not only about the author, but also his works at Amazon Mark Worrall at Amazon KingsoftheKingsRoad (talk) 11:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may only !vote once. Giant Snowman 12:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability, and article is clearly promotional. Giant Snowman 12:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CommentNo evidence of notability, how exactly are you defining that? Plenty who follow Chelsea, and plenty do, would disagree with your opionion - take a look at this - Mark Worrall guesting on Chelsea chat TV show December 2013 The article can be edited from a neutral point of view. KingsoftheKingsRoad (talk) 16:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidence of notability is substantial Mark Worrall author works. How notable do you need to be? How is the article 'clearly promotional'? You could argue that every author's wikipedia page is promotional since all carry a bibliography with supporting detail. If sweeping statements are going to be made they should be backed up, rather than just matter of fact. Jacqueline1961 (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CommentVery fair point. Subject has written more published words on Chelsea Football Club than most. Mark Worrall at Apple StorePerhaps the detractors are anti-Chelsea :-)KingsoftheKingsRoad (talk) 09:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

reply Appple store and LinkedIn and Amazon are not independent 3rd party sources. "Author works" links to Amazon. ESPN profile is by the subject? "Posted by Mark Worrall". The Chelsea related links do not provide significant coverage of subject. They mention him only in passing. Please see Wikipedia:author for relevant notability guideline. Perhaps it is KingsoftheKingsRoad who has a conflict of interest that affects his judgment, as he cannot separate the world of football from editing an encyclopedia. Dlohcierekim 14:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't hold with the "promotional view". It's a very well crafted article. And not, as in some cases, written in a false light to make the subject out to me more than they are. It also lacks that insipid yet instinctively written for promo purposes stilting that I see all too often. I only reviewed it after someone tagged it for speedy deletion. I was surprised that the numerous ref's did not provide significant coverage. This is a case of intuition saying the subject should be notable. If the supporters of the article can come up with in-depth coverage of the subject, we can all get back to other things. I was not able to locate it. Dlohcierekim 14:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

reply LOL yes maybe I cannot separate the world of football from anything actually - the thing is the world of football is an integral part of well, the world - and in respect of significant coverage there is more about this dude than a fair few players of the game that are listed on wiki including plenty of 'our Blues' have next to no in-depth coverage. Worth checking this recent stuff out Mark Worrall guesting on Chelsea chat TV show December 2013this fansite and this interviewI guess at the end of the day, if you want to delete the article, you will anyway. Fact is there are hundreds of other wiki pages for authors who have absolutely zero presence online. I don't want to argue with anyone, it just seems petty do delete this particular one as it's a part of our football club's modern heritage. KingsoftheKingsRoad (talk) 18:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
reply Almost six years of painstaking work in developing the article just to have it deleted. Doesn't make sense to me, I've spent half an hour looking at the wiki pages of a variety of authors who have nothing beyond listings on the internet and have only a couple of books to their name. Why do they merit inclusion? Jacqueline1961 (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
replyAnd ...Blue Murder, Chelsea Till I Die still riding high in the Amazon chartsprobably number one - has been most weeks since 2007. Anyway do you think we'll be Man U on Sunday? KingsoftheKingsRoad (talk) 09:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jacqueline1961:, what is your relationship to the article subject? Neither you or @KingsoftheKingsRoad: have evidenced any notability by showing significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Selling a few copies of a book about a football club does not make you notable. Giant Snowman 12:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman:the problem is, as highlighted to @Dlohcierekim: who flagged this article initially, is that there are a significant number of wikipedia articles about authors that have zero, let alone significant, coverage in reliable, third-party sourcesThis guy has significant coverage on Chelsea FC related websites and has sold more than a few copies of a book about a football club as you somewhat dismissively suggest. Why not get your facts straight first - take a look at the stats linked earlier. At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter. You have clearly made your decision to delete the article. Perhaps if the subject runs naked across Stamford Bridge on Sunday and attracts world-wide headlines by French kissing Jose Mourinho you will then deem that to be notable? KingsoftheKingsRoad (talk) 14:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@KingsoftheKingsRoad:, please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Giant Snowman 17:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Still no evidence of notability. Like Dlohcierekim, I am a little surprised. But writing books about a notable subject doesn't make you notable. Higher Amazon sales figures for your £0.84 Kindle copies than for other authors' hardback books related to the same football club don't make you notable. Being interviewed on a channel dedicated to that one football club doesn't make you notable. Having an online presence isn't necessary for notability and it's not sufficient either. Having a Wikipedia article doesn't make you notable. NebY (talk) 14:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment frankly, can't be bothered debating the notability concept anymore - go ahead, press delete - it really doesn't matter in the general scheme of things beyond reiterating the points made previously about other articles. Goodbye Jacqueline1961 (talk) 19:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG.. JMHamo (talk) 01:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - May as well delete the article then - since apparently I'm a sockpuppet. For the record, I'm nearly 70 year's old and I have to say this whole charade endorses my belief that the world has gone stark raving mad. Good luck to all of you with your crusades against the sockpuppets and those you piously deem to be the non-notables of this world. KingsoftheKingsRoad (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CU Note - the results of this SPI are pertinent to the ongoing discussion here.--Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 00:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Ruby Murray 16:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.