→Changes by anon claiming to be Reed: AfD would probably open a can of worms |
→Changes by anon claiming to be Reed: strike the part about where to buy the books and otherwise use the anon's edits |
||
Line 105: | Line 105: | ||
::::[[User:Jscottccre|Jscottccre]], an AfD would probably backfire, especially in light of the references that clearly establish Reed's notability and in light of the previous history of attempted deletion. --[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] [[User talk:A. B.|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 18:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC) |
::::[[User:Jscottccre|Jscottccre]], an AfD would probably backfire, especially in light of the references that clearly establish Reed's notability and in light of the previous history of attempted deletion. --[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] [[User talk:A. B.|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 18:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC) |
||
I see no reason not to stick with the anon's edits (after striking the part about where to buy his books). --[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] [[User talk:A. B.|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 18:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:12, 3 April 2007
Biography Unassessed | |||||||
|
Notability
Here's a ref I found:
Who is this??? He's nobody. Doesnt below in wikipedia
Who is this guy??? Its just a guy with a website trying to get traffic to his site. Doesnt belong in wikipedia Jscottccre 20:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Please do not tag articles for speedy deletion if they meet Wikipedia's Notability Guideline. I started to tag the John T. Reed article myself and did a quick Google search. The fact is, there are press articles to document his notability, so the article stays, like it or not. Those references are at the bottom of the article page. --A. B. (talk) 22:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Do not delete Notable and a reasonable critic of Real Estate Guru's
John T Reed - if you read the linked references - is apparently a notable entry - being referenced in neurtral main stream media at least 3 times as well as googling well.
His inclusion balances the inclusion of notable and somewhat shady Real Estate Guru's such as Robert Kiyosaki and Dolf de Roos.
I don't think he's a "nobody" and deserves a NPOV entry.
--PeterMarkSmith 08:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Please, do not keep tagging this article for speedy deletion
I see Jscottccre tagged the John T. Reed article for speedy deletion a second time.
I think we should all take a look at the following Wikipedia rules:
1. The Notability Guideline for People, in particular:
- "Please see criteria for speedy deletion for policy on speedy deletion. The fact that an article doesn't meet guidelines on this page, does not necessarily mean it qualifies for speedy deletion, as a mere claim of notability (even if contested) may avoid deletion under criterion A7 (Unremarkable people or groups). However, an AfD nomination may result in deletion, on consensus, after a 5 day debate."
- "In general, an article's text should include enough information to explain why the person is notable, and such information should be verifiable."'
- "Notability on Wikipedia for people is based on the following criterion:"
- "The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person."
- "This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, scholarly papers, and television documentaries except for the following:"
- "Works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that just mention the person in passing, telephone directory listings, or simple records of births and deaths."
- "This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, scholarly papers, and television documentaries except for the following:"
- "The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person."
2. The Speedy Deletion Policy
3. The guideline, "Do Not Disrupt Wikipedia to Illustrate a Point"
I've initiated a discussion on the Administrators' Noticeboard for Incidents asking for assistance.
Thanks, --A. B. (talk) 13:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Probably deserves an expanded biography, but I'm too busy to do it. Not Dilbert 22:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Notability
The article is curiously coy about his publications; a few of them are mentioned without publishing details or sources in the text, and that's it. As they're the only thing that would allow this person to pass the notability test, could sources and details be given? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- His publications are all available for order through his website. Not Dilbert 21:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's not the point; the article ought to list them properly, and give publishing details. Are they self-published, for example? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 10:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Revert of not dilbert's changes
Just want to note that I backed out not dilberts changes which to my mind were questionable. I think we need citations for the court case, and the removal of the fact template should be when a citation is given. For the book's able to be bought on web site, that seems like promotion. WilliamKF 21:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree the book bit is promotion but the court case is mentioned in a cited article noted at the bottom.
--PeterMarkSmith 01:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- The citation needs to be given properly, as it's been questioned. Tell us which article, and make it a proper reference.
- Why did you remove the {{fact}}? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 10:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Read the East Bay article, which is cited, for details of the litigation. If you have Pacer, the case was in the US District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Use the query function to pull up the entire case file in the case. It is a subscription service, however. The "fact" was removed because if you look at Reed's website, you will see he is the author of those books. Not Dilbert 23:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- A subscription service isn't a verifiable source.
- So the books are self-published then? He seems less and less notable as information comes out. I say "he"; are you in fact John Reed? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 10:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I am John T. Reed. That's why my handle is "Not Dilbert." Are you Russ Whitney? What an asinine insinuation you make. Not Dilbert 14:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Listen please avoid personal attacks even if you are frustrated. However on the issue of verifiable sources you are, in my view, correct (see discussion at WP:RS) although its arguable. It is not possible to find readable online sources for many things and the existence of a source which could be checked for unsubjective points of fact is acceptable. --BozMo talk 14:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- I can't see a mention of this anywhere in WP:RS; I've left a comment and request at its Talk page. I see, incidentally, that Not Dilbert has not only resorted to personal abuse, but has violated 3RR on the article. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
True; I misread it. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 20:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
More notability
He is well known in the real estate world largely due to the Real Estate guru ratings page on his website. Here is a short segment of bio from his site: "John T. Reed was a real estate investor for 23 years. He worked as a real estate agent and as a property manager managing office, industrial, farm, and residential properties. He is the sole writer and publisher of John T. Reed's Real Estate Investor's Monthly. He is also the author of 20 real estate investment books. Reed holds a bachelors degree from the United States Military Academy at West Point and a master of business administration degree from Harvard Business School. " —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.133.6.2 (talk) 13:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
Changes by anon claiming to be Reed
The same policies and guuidelines would apply even if we knew that this person was Reed (which we don't). We don't allow unsourced claims that he's a "leading critic", or of lengths of time, etc., and there shouldn't be an adevrt for his books being sold on his Website. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 13:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- This article should be deleted. Clearly Reed is creating and editing articles on wikipedia for SEO purposes. This article is on a guy who sits in his house selling books he prints from his computer. Nothing more. No one of any significance. This man is a bitter, angry man who's purpase is to get attention for his website to sell his products.
- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jscottccre (talk • contribs) 17:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- AFAICT Reed is notable, to be applauded for showing up some pathetic jerks who hate him and didn't create the article. HOWEVER I would rather have no article about a living person than a potentially libellous one. Perhaps we should AfD it; since although it is easy to find newspaper references on him none are in the article and no one seems motivated to improve it. Meanwhile some of the personal comments in your last post I have deleted. --BozMo talk 15:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I see that the level of argument is the same on both sides.
He does seem to be published only by himself, and someone claiming to be him has tried to insert PoV labguage and an advert for his books. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 15:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- I have emailed you about your reinclusion of comments which may slander a living person. Please take more care. I have deleted those, the other comment you make isn't important by comparison --BozMo talk 17:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- First, it would be libel not slander. Secondly, the comment isn't mine. Thirdly, though, there are no good grounds for removing any of the other editor's comments here; the worry about legal action is overwrought. Oh, fourthly, no e-mail has arrived — so were you talking to someone else? Who? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- John T. Reed is a person who adds mentions to wikipedia (and articles around the internet) in order to direct people to his website. The mention of Robert Kiyosaki and Russ Whitney in this article are only to direct people using search engines (looking for information on Kiyosaki or Whitney) to this wikipedia page and then to Reeds website. Notice that Reeds website is also on the Robert Kiyosaki page in wikipedia. Searching wikipedia for Russ Whitney returns Reeds page in the 1st position. All attempts to get search engine traffic (and wikipedia traffic) to his website in order to sell Reeds self published books and newsletter. Reed, if anything is a master at SEO (Search engine optimization) and is using wikipedia for spam/advertising to direct search engine traffic to his website. This article should be flagged for AfD and all mentions of reeds website should be removed from wikipedia. Comments made in the article and on Reeds website are libelous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jscottccre (talk • contribs) 17:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC).
- Jscottccre, an AfD would probably backfire, especially in light of the references that clearly establish Reed's notability and in light of the previous history of attempted deletion. --A. B. (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I see no reason not to stick with the anon's edits (after striking the part about where to buy his books). --A. B. (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)