Talk:Paco Ahlgren/Archive 1

Untitled
I am not an editor, I just clean up grammar and flow from time to time, but this 'biography' smacks of self-aggrandizement, as though it were written by the subject himself. The article builds a portrait of some kind of renaissance man, yet this is about a minor blogger with a novel to his name. Comment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.133.111.229 (talk) 02:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

This article needs to be removed. It's essentially an advertisement for the guy and he references many people and ideas to which his only connection is that he "has studied them." He was a "financial advisor" and derived strategies from legendary investor Warren Buffett? Are you kidding me?!! What armchair investor doesn't wish to emulate Warren Buffett? He "considers himself an Austrian economist"? Terrific! I like the Beatles, but I don't have a wikipedia page filled with this kind of information. Nothing but a sham article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.185.18.72 (talk) 22:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Help
Before this page is deleted yet again could I request help with adding notability of the subject from one of the admins? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imaspecialmonkey (talk • contribs)


 * No worries, I think we've established notability now. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 17:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned status
I've put links to this article in Motley Fool, Seeking Alpha and Ayn Rand. Had to dig up a source for the statement on AR, but we're good. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

NPOV
I've tagged this as having multiple issues. It appears a major rewrite was done some time ago which introduced a lot of POV claims, poor references (imdb, etc.) and a number of other issues. It currently reads like a marketing/promotional piece and needs a significant amount of work to fix all of the issues. The other option would be to simply revert it back to the last known NPOV version, but I wanted to check before I did that since there have been so many edits in the interim. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

support. I assume you're looking to revert to before tugglebox's edits. This might be mandatory, in fact, since some of the text added by him/her seems to match, exactly, text on Paco Ahlgren's (copyrighted) website: http://www.bottomviolation.com/about/. Tdslk (talk) 00:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Pretty much. I'm going to revert it, it's awful as it is. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

degree?
I agree with the comments. This seems like a promo piece. My question is where is his degree from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.29.202 (talk) 01:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Megalomaniac alert!
This guy wrote most of this article himself, as well as the many glowing reviews of his book on Amazon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.217.128 (talk) 02:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced assertions
Not an editor, but sometimes make changes for grammar and syntax.

First, the whole article strikes me as self promotion by Mr. Ahlgren.

Second, there are several unsourced allegations, including the following, which would require numerous citations to be a) relevant and; b) acceptable:

''In 2011, theories began to emerge on the Internet, linking Ahlgren to the crypto currency known as Bitcoin. Some people have even suggested that Ahlgren is Bitcoin's mysterious and pseudonymous founder, Satoshi Nakamoto. The speculation arises primarily from Ahlgren's experience in computer programming and cryptology, coupled with the fact that he proposed an alternative private currency in his book Discipline—written many years before the advent of Bitcoin. Ahlgren also seems to have predicted in his book the economic malaise that led in no small part to Bitcoin's rise as a medium of exchange. Ahlgren denies any connection to the inception of Bitcoin.''

I cannot find a single example of Mr. Ahlgren being associated with BitCoin and would suggest that unless this is addressed, it is necessary to remove this paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.224.126 (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Removed as unsourced. The Interior  (Talk) 21:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Mischaracterized statements about "reviews"
The article as present states that Mr. Ahlgren has received "favorable reviews" from periodicals and other publications including the Houston Press. Interestingly, the author of this article links to the Houston Press review:

"With all due respect to our collective human intellect, the average person doesn’t exactly get quantum physics. So when you not only get quantum physics but then decide it’s a great idea to seek parallels between the field and those of economics, East Asian religious theory and psychological science, you’re a rare bird indeed. Paco Ahlgren, who will be reading from and signing his debut novel, Discipline, today at Borders, is one such creature. His book, essentially about a man’s self-discovery, entails trips through time and multiple universes, and all the while forges connections among economics, religion and, of course, physics. Whether or not your own endeavors are a bit more modest, Ahlgren’s should be an interesting voice to hear — even if just to appreciate your own lazy Sunday a little bit more. Sun., Aug. 26, 2 p.m."

This is not a review, and in that sense it's not "favorable". It's simply a notice that the author (Mr. Ahlgren) will be discussing his novel to an as yet undetermined audience. It is suggested as one activity with which readers may fill a Sunday. This is *not* a favorable review of the work in question.

Highly dubious and I'm getting the sense that other 'talkers' are on the right track here. This is a self-promotional piece and I strongly suggest close scrutiny, if not outright deletion, be considered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.142.133 (talk) 03:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

POV-check May 2014
The whole article reads like a promotional piece, plus the subject fails the notability test. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.114.109.66 (talk) 19:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Plus most of the references are dead links. This is just a random blogger trying to use wikipedia to build up his own reputation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.180.61.107 (talk) 20:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

To top it off, even his book is self-published (as per Greenleaf Book Group's wiki, the company is based around a business model where the author pays for the publishing). I suggest deleting the article completely, it's a sham. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.23.178.70 (talk) 20:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * To nominate for deletion please follow guidelines at WP:AfD.Jonpatterns (talk) 14:36, 19 May 2014 (UTC)