Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Kacher


 * 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. T. Canens (talk) 03:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Chris Kacher

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

There is no evidence of notability. Much of the information which has been posted to the article is unverifiable, being unsourced or sourced to sources which are unreliable, dependent on the subject, or both. A significant amount of information which has been posted there has certainly been misinformation. A detailed account is given at User talk:Imyoung. I have checked enough to confirm that the account given there is generally correct. The article is clearly, as stated in the user talk page I have mentioned, written as self-promotion; it is unverifiable, and parts of it are or have been direct misinformation; there is no evidence that the subject of the article is notable. The article has been heavily edited by about five single purpose accounts with very little or no editing anywhere else, and hehse edits have been heavily promotional. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

My rebuttal to Imyoung

Dear JamesBWatson and Imyoung, I am Chris Kacher. I have been notified that the page that was created for me in 2006 is up for deletion.

I am more than happy to provide whatever you need in terms of links and verifications. I am available at.

Imyoung may have an axe to grind most likely because he lost money in the stock market when he was invested with Gil Morales. Gil has already written about his drawdowns in our recently published book, as big drawdowns are part of his investment style. I had only joined forces with Gil as he was winding down his funds but got some of the blame. Gil has been completely transparent in his drawdowns as they are part and parcel of his style. He always comes back brilliantly, which is what sets him apart from the rest.

Imyoung claims he has little time for this, yet he spends an inordinate amount of time researching my background, then writing voluminously to wikipedia.

In rebuttal to Imyoung (my numbers correspond to Imyoung's numbers, and it is Imyoung's words where quotes are included ""):

1. "Chris Kacher, aka Christian D. Kacher, aka Chris Casher, is an expert at self-promotion and self-aggrandizement, who uses Wikipedia to sell himself and his products: his CDs and his latest a book that got only 5-star reviews on Amazon! "

Our book has ranked as high as #2 on both finance and investing on amazon.com. It sold out of its first printing in 4 days after the book was launched. We were also told by our published Wiley & Sons that it is now being translated into Korean. The 5 star reviews can be seen here: http://www.amazon.com/Trade-Like-Bill-ONeil-Trading/dp/0470616539/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268601553&sr=1-2, though I believe two reviews are 4 stars. That Imyoung implies that we rigged the reviews and took the time to post them is ludicrous. Did we also force websites to post favorable reviews on our book and make videos about it? Here are just a couple sites that have posted favorable items about our book:

BOOK OF THE MONTH: http://investchief.blogspot.com/2010/09/book-of-month-september.html POCKET PIVOTS VIDEO: http://www.chartswingtrader.com/2010/09/stock-market-video-using-telechart-to.html

2. I received a Ph.D. in Nuclear Chemistry, which involves a lot of work in Physics, as most of my work was done at the 88" Cyclotron at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory adjacent to UC Berkeley, hence at this level, is considered equivalent to Nuclear Physics as the line between the two is blurred. You'll note from my list of publications (Physical Review C, etc) that circles in science consider this to be as much if not more physics than chemistry.

3. "In the USA it is not common practice to apply the title of a profession to a person who never practiced the profession nor is the title “Dr.” used except academically (from his accent I suspect he may have a foreign background too"

I dont have an accent as I was born in California. I have a 'California' accent to foreigners, but not to anyone living in the U.S. The 'Dr.' is used for anyone who achieves a Ph.D. It is not just used for medical doctors. Thus all scientists who have Ph.D.s are referred to as Dr. This is true in Europe, the United Kingdom, in Australia, and in the U.S. Also, I find it interesting that Imyoung admits 'In the USA is it not common practice...'. Is wikipedia just a U.S. based source of information? Of course not. Wikipedia is great because there are no geographic boundaries.

4a/b. "Totally ridiculous unscientific nonsense, the first atom of element 110 already existed and Kacher, lowly grad student in the academic hierarchy, did not confirm anything."

I was part of the Dr. Darlene Hoffman/Dr. Glenn Seaborg research team that helped to confirm the existence of element 106, and thus we had the privilege of naming it Seaborgium. I have evidence of group pictures taken with our research group which included me, Glenn Seaborg, and Darlene Hoffman. In addition, you will see that some of the research papers published contain all three names: http://prc.aps.org/abstract/PRC/v51/i5/pR2293_1 [click show all authors and affiliations and you will see C. Kacher, G.T. Seaborg, D.C. Hoffman]

Here is the article where I am mentioned as having helped to confirm element 106: http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/element.106.html. Note, in 1993, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) was Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, or LBL. The element 110 experiment was discussed in this paper here of which I am shown as a co-author: http://prc.aps.org/abstract/PRC/v51/i5/pR2293_1 (click show all authors and affiliations). It was the first time an atom of 110 had ever been made. That Imyoung says element 110 had already been discovered disproves the timeline of events as recorded by history. Also, provided on my wikipedia page are just a handful of articles in which I am listed as a co-author thus the assertion that Kacher has been co-author of over 50 research articles is correct.

5. "In all the other research articles I found, he was an “also-ran” graduate student."

That Imyoung implies that just because I was not lead author in many publications makes my participation negligible is ludicrous and presumptuous. For example, there is a reason why Albert Ghiorso invited me onto the element 110 experiment. I was considered a top graduate student for my unusual ideas and Ghiorso and I became good friends. Ghiorso was close colleagues with Glenn Seaborg and at that time, had discovered more nuclear isotopes of anyone living or dead.

6. "Glenn Seaborg was born in 1912 and at about 80 years of age no scientist I know of still mentors students."

Again, I appear in scientific papers such as the one I mentioned above with Seaborg and appear with him in research group photos taken at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Seaborg was in his early 80s when he held these bi-monthly research meetings in his office at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. He was very much a huge guiding force even at this advanced age.

7. "Nobody I know wrote their Ph.D. dissertation while also running an investment service."

I started one of the first investment advisory services on the web back in 1995. Yes, I was writing my Ph.D. thesis, but I was also focused on switching out of the field and into stock market investments. I've often done the highly unusual. I recently was on an archaeological dig in Kefalonia with an archaeologist who the London Times called the real-life Indiana Jones http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1362158.ece. I also am releasing my second CD, after having released Teardrop Rain in 2008. And yes, I just did a book tour in New York City for a book I recently published through Wiley & Sons, a top publishing house. People ask how I find the time, and I tell them I'm fortunate to be doing exactly what I love to do- invest, compose, perform, write, and pursue other activities that come my way. It creates much envy/jealousy so I am used to people trying to tear me down, especially in what Ayn Rand once wrote, this 'culture of envy' that is the United States.

8. "Are they two different Kacher or did he merely play investor while somebody else did the work in nuclear chemistry?"

Again, another specious assertion. This was probably put forth by those who say I am two people because no one could have done all I have accomplished.

9. "Because of the hyperbole in the interview (not even Warren Buffett makes 18,000% profit over 7 years and somebody who did wouldn’t need to write books and drum up business)"

Again, this has been audited by the big four auditor KPMG. The documentation is here right on our website because it is hard for people to believe such a high return is achievable: http://www.virtueofselfishinvesting.com/pdf/Chris-Kacher-KPMG-verification-letter.pdf

11. "Note 7) his Charles D. Coryell Award needs to be verified. Of 33 recipients only Christian D. Kacher’s name is inserted using Times New Roman, all other are in the same font, Verdana [10]."

That Imyoung brings this up shows the mental state of this person. He will do whatever it takes to tear me down. http://spinner.cofc.edu/~nuclear/coryell.htm?referrer=webcluster&. Please write to Kinard, W Frank  or Graham Peaslee  as they are administrators of the Coryell Award.

12. See http://www.virtueofselfishinvesting.com/pdf/Chris-Kacher-KPMG-verification-letter.pdf. As for employment at William O'Neil, read our book "Trade Like an O'Neil Disciple: How We Made 18,000% in the Stock Market". It is a personal account of our years as top performing portfolio managers for William O'Neil.

13. Many biographies on wikipedia contain references. The references provide a far more complete picture than if they were stricken. I look at a bio's references on wikipedia all the time when reading about a person.

14. Many biographies on wikipedia contain publications even if the person was not primary author. As above, the publications provide a far more complete picture than if they were stricken. I may glance at a person's publications on wikipedia with frequency when reading about a person.

15. From the age of 5 to 12, each year Suzuki would choose a handful of talented students to represent the institute, and would fly them somewhere in the U.S. or to Japan. I was chosen each year. We have old copies of programs where it shows I performed for Suzuki.

This kind of behavior of wikipedia should be controlled. If it is possible, we nominate that Imyoung be removed from Wikipedia. We have also consulted with our attorneys at Reed Smith and are prepared to take this to a higher level if necessary.

That said, I want to leave on a good note since I focusing on negative people who wish to unjustly tear me down is not the best way forward. I believe music is the shortest distance between two people, and as we discuss in Chapter 10 of our book "Trading is Life; Life is Trading," we are all on an evolutionary path, not just as traders but as high level mammals. We help others including ourselves along this path by teaching and coaching, for teaching is the best way to solidify the understanding of concepts. And we hope our book and website will help others optimize not just their investing, but also their lives.

I am, and will always remain, a student.

Best,

Chris Kacher Teardroprain (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teardroprain (talk • contribs) 06:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

JamesBWatson Response:


 * I have no intention of going through the above post detail by detail, but I note that it confirms that the article was written for promotional purposes with a conflict of interest. This is indicated not only by specific statements in it (e.g. "the page that was created for me") but also by the whole tone and tenor of the piece. I also note that "We have also consulted with our attorneys at Reed Smith and are prepared to take this to a higher level if necessary" reads somewhat like a threat to take legal action. I will call attention to Wikipedia's policy on legal threats on the user's talk page, and ask for clarification. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Chris Kacher Response:

First, the legal issue is not against Wikimedia or Wikipedia as I think they are brilliant examples of open source. No other site has grown as fast from the diligence of people who wish to share knowledge.

Second, when I write "the page that was created for me," the page was created without my knowledge as I was informed of the page several months after it was created, but who else was it created for if not for me since it contains my name and some of my accomplishments? I have a following here in the US and in the UK from my accomplishments in science (elements 106, 110), finance (six years in a row of triple digit percentage returns each year), and music. I also have been interviewed in various books including Kevin Marder's Conversations With Top Traders and The Transuranium People. Over the last couple of years, many people have made positive comment of the wikipedia piece, so wikipedia has become near and dear to me, since I read from it almost every day as it is an excellent resource.

Third, I sense strong bias here. I put up factual rebuttals to Imyoung's accusations, but apparently no one is interested in reading these rebuttals, but instead taking Imyoung's accusations as truth. As I have said, I am more than happy to provide documents, news accounts, and links to support what people have posted to the page. Imyoung's assertions are either gross distortions of the truth, or just plain wrong. As one of many examples, his claim that we are putting up the 5 star reviews on amazon is nothing short of ludicrous. We have been interviewed on CNBC, FOX, Reuters, Bloomberg, and many other channels as the book sold out of its first printing in four days after it was launched. Here is one of many interview links: http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?play=1&video=1574558341


 * Comment I am pleased to read that the suggestion of legal action was not against Wikipedia. I thought it probably wasn't, but wanted to be sure. I do not intend to spend the time it would take to go through every point of Imyoung's accusation and every point of Chris Kacher/Teardroprain's rebuttal, and make thorough checks to confirm or refute their respective claims. I am willing to be neutral on that, and even to give Chris Kacher the benefit of the doubt unless and until I see clear evidence to the contrary. However, I have searched for independent reliable sources on Chris Kacher, and have found none. Almost all of what I have found is from him, or from Wikipedia and other Wikis (including sites mirroring the Wikipedia article), from sites selling or promoting his books, etc etc. I have not found anything at all that indicates notability by Wikipedia's standards. I also still see the article as distinctly promotional. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a resume to me and very lacking in neutrality. While this guy can be real, his page really needs to be modified to get rid of the promotional tone. Maybe model it after the Murray Gell-Mann. bobthefish2 (talk) 21:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Chris Kacher Response:

Dear JamesBWatson,

I appreciate your advisement. Wikipedia notability standards http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notability_in_Wikipedia read as follows: "Reliable sources generally include mainstream news media and major academic journals." It continues, "...accusing [wikipedia] editors of being "wannabe tin-pot dictators masquerading as humble editors." In 2007, notability disputes spread into other topics, including companies, places, websites, and people.[citation needed] As Nicholson Baker put it, "There are quires, reams, bales of controversy over what constitutes notability in Wikipedia: nobody will ever sort it out."[6]"

Timothy Noah wrote several articles in 2007 in Slate about the threatened deletion of his entry on grounds of his insufficient notability. He concluded that "Wikipedia's notability policy resembles U.S. immigration policy before 9/11: stringent rules, spotty enforcement."[7]

That said, I have been on mainstream news media, as well as in books, in newspapers, and in major academic journals. Here is a partial list:

=MAINSTREAM NEWS- CNBC: CNBC televised interview "Street Signs" (anchor Amanda Drury) - http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?play=1&video=1574558341

=MAINSTREAM NEWS- Dow Jones MarketWatch article and on-screen interview: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/four-stocks-to-carry-you-through-the-slump-2010-09-01

=MAINSTREAM NEWS- Televised Reuters interview with anchorman John Kozey = http://insider.thomsonreuters.com/link.html?ctype=groupchannel&chid=3&cid=139961&start=0&end=255&shareToken=MzozZmUzNGY0Yi03M2JmLTQ3MmYtYTM5Ny00NWZkNDFkODA3MTQ%3D

=MAINSTREAM NEWS- Dow Jones MarketWatch on-screen interview: http://www.marketwatch.com/video/asset/dont-be-cruel-september/DD59D90E-A0BB-45AC-84C8-B5343169DF28

=MAINSTREAM NEWS- Bloomberg "Taking Stock" with the legendary Pimm Fox http://www.bloomberg.com/podcasts/taking-stock/

=NEWS- Gabriel Wisdom http://archives.warpradio.com/btr/GabeWisdom/083019.mp3

=NEWS- Jon Hansen interview “Window on Business” Internet Radio Show (60 min) http://www.blogtalkradio.com/jon-hansen/2010/08/25/trade-like-an-o-neil-disciple-how-we-made-18000-in

=BOOK- Marder, Kevin (2000). Conversations With Top Traders. xv, 1-31: M. Gordon Pub. Group. ISBN 1-893756-08-4. Kacher interviewed in Chapter 1.

=BOOK- Kacher, Chris and Morales, Gil. Trade Like an O'Neil Disciple: How We Made 18,000% in the Stock Market. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-470-61653-6

=BOOK- Seaborg, Glenn (2000). The Transuranium People: The Inside Story. 317: World Scientific Publishing Company. ISBN 1-86094-087-0.

=AWARD- Coryell Award in Nuclear Chemistry - http://spinner.cofc.edu/~nuclear/coryell.htm?referrer=webcluster&

=NEWSPAPER- Goldhaber, Judith (Sept 10 1993). "LBL Researchers Confirm Existence of Element 106". Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/element.106.html. Kacher mentioned in article.

=MAJOR ACADEMIC JOURNAL- Physical Review C (considered a top journal in physics): http://prc.aps.org/abstract/PRC/v51/i5/pR2293_1. Click 'Show All Authors/Affiliations.' I appear as C. Kacher along with my thesis advisers D.C. Hoffman and G.T. Seaborg.

=MAJOR ACADEMIC JOURNAL- Physical Review Letters: http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v72/i10/p1423_1. I appear as C.D. Kacher along with my thesis adviser D.C. Hoffman.

=MAJOR ACADEMIC JOURNAL- Journal of Radioanalytical & Nuclear Chemistry: https://doi.org/10.1023%2FA%3A1006702712199. I appear as C.D. Kacher.

=MAJOR ACADEMIC JOURNAL- Physical Review C: http://prc.aps.org/abstract/PRC/v53/i6/p2893_1. I appear as C.D. Kacher.

=MAJOR ACADEMIC JOURNAL- Physical Review C: http://prc.aps.org/abstract/PRC/v46/i5/p1873_1. I appear as C.D. Kacher.

=MAJOR ACADEMIC JOURNAL- Physical Review C: http://prc.aps.org/abstract/PRC/v49/i4/p1859_1. I appear as C.D. Kacher.

=MAJOR ACADEMIC JOURNAL- Radiochimica Acta: http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=10719681. I appear as C.D. Kacher.

=MAJOR ACADEMIC JOURNAL- Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory: http://www.osti.gov/bridge/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=193914. I appear as C.D. Kacher.

=MUSIC- Casher, Christian (stage name) (2009). Teardrop Rain CD. CD is available around the internet and in nearly 3,000 stores across the U.S.: http://www.amazon.com/Teardrop-Rain/dp/B002TQ9FT0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dmusic&qid=1284503068&sr=8-1, and I will be releasing my second CD in early 2011.

Thank you again for your help.

Best,

Chris Kacher

PS: To bobthefish2, I like your suggestion. Can you or someone who is familiar with wikipedia edit my page in this manner? Teardroprain (talk) 02:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Keep this page should be saved. i'd have to agree wholeheartedly with that criticism above about wikipedia's notability standards being too arbitrary and stringent and SPOTTY. i often come across pages that do not deserve to be on wikipedia. but then when a page such as this one gets picked apart, i wonder why.

wikipedia is comprehensive beyond measure because you can find information on people who are notable in their respective fields, thus while maybe not household words, they are known in certain respects, such as Chris Kacher in the field of investments and science. i'm not familiar with his music but am familiar with his investing prowess and his endeavors in science, and the music part certainly adds flavor to his whole biography. i'm often using wiki to get info on unusual people who've made their mark in some respect, so certainly arent "famous" by normal standards, but definitely worth entry. but perhaps not all moderators are rational. Damientd (talk) 03:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Inadequate sources not to mention oodles of WP:COI. C. D. Kacher has a GS h index of 9: not enough. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC).

--Teardroprain (talk) 05:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment This is by far an incomplete list of my publications so this GS [h index] of 9 is incorrect. As far as COI, how can I control what people post? It is not up to me. That said, could someone who is familiar with wikipedia format rewrite the page so it conforms to wikipedia's standards?
 * Speedy Keep I've been reading these arguments and felt I must step in and have my say. I've been a follower of William O'Neil, Ed Seykota, and Chris Kacher for a number of years. I head up an investment group in Incline Village, Nevada, the home of a few top market wizards including Ed Seykota. I've attempted to edit all 3 wiki pages, as all 3 are considered legendary investors, but have focused mostly on Kacher because I was able to add much to his page since 2007. Imyoung clearly has a personal vendetta against Chris Kacher- his accusations are agreed by our investment group to have no basis, and worse, they seem to have malicious intent to defraud Kacher. It seems this is a pernicious form of libel and defamation of character. Meanwhile, it seems Kacher has provided ample evidence of notability showing legitimate sources and links of his scientific achievements and investment track record. I'm beginning to agree with Timothy Noah where he writes "Wikipedia's notability policy resembles U.S. immigration policy before 9/11: stringent rules, spotty enforcement."[7]This quote comes from the notability page on wikipedia. Point by point:

1) Imyoung claims he knows of no scientist in his 80s that ever mentored any student. What makes imyoung the authority in this matter? This is an ignorant statement especially when history shows that Glenn Seaborg remained a big influence in nuclear physics well into his 80s. Read history!

2) Imyoung claims that not even Warren Buffet achieved an 18000% return. Again, what ignorance. Kacher is just about the only market wizard to provide his audited returns, by big four auditor KPMG no less, which are posted on his website. Also, market wizards Ed Seykota, David Ryan, Lee Freestone, Mike Webster, and Bill O'Neil all achieved returns that were above and beyond what Buffet has achieved. Buffet has the advantage of having been an investor since the 1960s, like O'Neil, so both men are billionaires.

3) Imyoung claims all these 5 star reviews of Chris Kacher's book on amazon are forgeries. This is beyond ridiculous. Who would have that kind of time to create the varied and in depth reviews that have been posted so far on amazon? Also, what of all the other sites that are praising his book? Did Kacher somehow manage to control these dozens of websites that have posted glowing reviews of his book including one that recently made it book of the month? I've also seen him interviewed by major broadcast networks including CNBC, Reuters, and Dow Jones.

4) Imyoung says Kacher shouldnt be called doctor. Having been in physiology, if you receive a PhD in a science, people refer to you as Dr. Imyoung is trying to cause trouble on absolutely no basis.

5) Imyoung makes a big deal between nuclear chemistry and nuclear physics, saying Kacher is a chemist, not a nuclear physicist. What ignorance. He obviously is neither nor has any understanding of the two disciplines which are quite similar at the particle accelerator level. If you read Kacher's scientific publications, most of the work he did was at particle accelerators.

6) Imyoung says he has little time for this, yet he seems to have spent a considerable amount of time researching Kacher, and then writing that lengthy piece against Kacher on wikipedia. He clearly knows Kacher from somewhere, and has felt the need to get even for some reason. Jealousy perhaps? I'm no stranger to people who try to tear you down when you achieve a certain level of success.

7) Imyoung says that because Kacher appears not as first author in many scientific publications makes him an 'also-ran'. Imyoung clearly has never been in the sciences or at least never published anything scientific. Imyoung is in no position to judge Kacher's contributions to a paper on the basis of what position he is listed as an author. I've noticed Kacher appears as one of typically 6 to 8 authors, thus this is notable, especially when considering how many papers in which he appears.

8) Imyoung says he knows of no one who wrote their Ph.D. dissertation while running an investment service. What an absurd statement. A small select group of people in the mid 1990s were starting up internet sites while pursuing other activities. I am aware of Kacher's original site which ran for less than a year back in 1995, as I made money off of his recommendations. The year he ran his site checks out with his receiving his Ph.D. in 1995, so evidently he did both.

9) Imyoung says Coryell Award needs to be verified on the basis of font size. What?? Kacher provides the link to an .edu site where his name appears in a grid of Coryell Award winners. Imyoung clearly has some personal issue against Kacher.

10) We second Kacher's suggestion that imyoung be removed from wikipedia. This kind of destructive behavior has no place here. --Intriligator500 (talk) 11:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Possibly Promotional?. I don't see any need to penalize (talk) in this situation. Even though a few of his assertions may be wrong, I am convinced by him and others that the claims in Chris Kacher's have to be viewed with skepticism until they have been confirmed by reasonable evidence. While this process can be frustrating for Chris Kacher and associates, nuclear physicists should (more than most people in the world) understand the necessity of scientific skepticism. At the same time, I need point out that Intriligator500 (contribs's activity in Wikipedia almost entire revolved around the content management of Chris Kacher's page. While there's a possibility that he and Chris Kacher are still unrelated, it does seem a bit suspicious... Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

 Keep  I took bobthefish2's suggestion and did a major rewrite on the Kacher page, after taking a look at the Murray Gell-Mann page. --Intriligator500 (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC) ''Strikethrough because Intriligator500 has already voted. Peridon (talk) 00:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)''


 * Delete. My sympathies to the closing admin who has to wade through all of this prolix detail. I think the bottom line is this: The article is basically WP:PROMOTION of an individual who is clearly accomplished, but not notable. Moreover, much of what's said above vastly overstates the case for notability. There seems to be no assertion on the basis of musical contributions, so let's look at the other 2 possibilities: his work in finance and his work in physics. While I'm not an expert as to the former, one can look at other money/investment managers like Boaz Weinstein, finding that there's been much written about them in mainstream sources. I don't think we really see that here. Kacher asserts above that "I have been on mainstream news media", but it seems that much of what he's referring to are things he has written, like this. These strike me as routine pieces and my sense is that he's not a notable figure in the financial world. Of course, I'll be glad to defer to those more expert in the field. As to his physics, I can comment with much more certainty that his impact is not notable. An easy WoS check shows an h-index of 10 for CD Kacher (being careful to remove false-positives from CM Kacher, who has a very highly cited paper in Biophys. J.). While this value is borderline, it is informative to look at Kacher's place within the most highly cited articles. All of this work appears to have been done while he was a grad student, or shortly thereafter, and all have fairly large author lists with Kacher being mostly in the middle. For example, here's the author list of the most highly-cited one (42 WoS citations): Kadkhodayan B, Turler A, Gregorich KE, Baisden PA, Czerwinski KR, Eichler B, Gaggeler HW, Hamilton TM, Jost DT, Kacher CD, Kovacs A, Kreek SA, Lane MR, Mohar MF, Neu MP, Stoyer NJ, Sylwester ER, Lee DM, Nurmia MJ, Seaborg GT, Hoffman DC (emphasis mine), with the first author being also the corresponding author. Therefore, while statements in the article like "Kacher helped to make the first atom of element 110" may be technically correct, they falsely imply a much more prominent role than what Kacher appears to have played. As for the Coryell Award, this is a recognition at the undergrad level and doesn't go to notability. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC).
 * Delete Wow, Chris Kacher commented on his own article's afd, which is clearly WP:COI. Anyway I agree with Agricola44, the person "is accomplished but not notable"— Chris! c / t 20:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

 Keep  Agricola44: Boaz Weinstein lost $1 billion in 2008 to bad bets in the credit markets. Meanwhile, Chris Kacher has demonstrated record level returns in the stock market over many years. Why would we celebrate someone who lost so much money, while denigrating someone who made so much money then managed to keep it? Is that what our culture has turned into? A culture of envy? So someone like Boaz Weinstein can have a page on wikipedia who has limited accomplishments, yet someone like Chris Kacher gets ostrasized and deleted? Further, Kacher has a following due to his days on stage with William O'Neil himself, and thus was interviewed in Kevin Marder's book "Conversations With Top Traders" and a number of other radio and print publications. It's no accident the prominent publishhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chris_Kacher&action=editer Wiley & Sons asked Kacher and Morales to write a book on investing. Kacher's 18000%+ return was verified by KPMG. Kacher's book appears to be selling very well as it reached into the top 10 on both investing and finance on amazon.

Chrishomingtang: Its ridiculous if wikipedia says a person cannot comment on a wikipedia entry that is about them. To my understanding, when Chris Kacher learned about his wikipedia entry, he naturally became interested. So why would it be a surprise that he is participating in this discussion?

Bobthefish2: Understandable you would think we are mates, but I have had been learning about the markets for years and owe much of my own success to the likes of William O'Neil, Ed Seykota, and Chris Kacher, as well as other notables such as David Ryan (see his Wikipedia entry) and Nicolas Darvas. I have been one of the chief contributors to Kacher's page since the other notables already had relatively full pages. I have contributed in minor ways to the pages of Ed Seykota and O'Neil. --99.60.51.35 (talk) 20:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC) PS: I forgot to log in. The note above is from me. --Intriligator500 (talk) 20:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC) ''Strikethrough because Intriligator500 has already voted. Peridon (talk) 11:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)''


 * Note All of the following accounts (User:Bobthefish2, User:Damientd, User:Intriligator500) are single-purpose accounts that exclusively or almost exclusively edited Chris Kacher and this afd. Their editing history made me suspected that they are socks of User:Teardroprain, who claims to be Chris Kacher. I think this person is attempting to influence the outcome of this debate. An admin should look into this.— Chris! c / t 21:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Right. I am definitely a puppet. I deliberately start a debate on the DNA Codon Table topic and the Genetic Code discussion to hide my puppet identity. I also decided to drop hints about my fellow puppet User:Intriligator500 and voted against myself because this is too easy. You are so perceptive. /sarcasm Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It has been done like that before. I've seen it on two or three occasions at least. Peridon (talk) 11:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Keep To Chrishomingtang: Why wouldnt you think bobthefish2 is a sock of Imyoung instead of Chris Kacher, unless you are a sock or friend of Imyoung? bobthefish2 has raised points questioning Kacher's page, so it seems you are deliberately trying to create doubt when it seems clear that bobthefish2, if he is a sock at all, is far more likely to be a sock of Imyoung rather than a sock of chris kacher. Sock or no sock, logic should reign supreme in these types of debates regardless of from where the reasoning comes. Thus, how come certain investors of equivalent or less notability can have wikipedia pages but investors such as chris kacher are questioned? Some examples:

David Ryan protege of William O'Neil in the late 80s/early 90s as Chris Kacher was in the late 90s/early 00s Boaz Weinstein lost $1 billion in 2008 but Kacher has documented outstanding returns over many years. Martin J. Schwartz authored a book but so did chris kacher... Schwartz won US Investment Championship but Kacher's KPMG audit shows higher returns earning him an interview in Kevin Marder's book Conversations With Top Traders Linda Bradford Raschke was interviewed in Schwager's New Market Wizards but Kacher was interviewed in Marder's Conversations With Top Traders. Raschke co-authored a book, but so did Kacher "How We Made 18,000% in the Stock Market"

So how come they can have wikipedia pages but investors such as chris kacher are questioned? it makes no sense especially when considering that kacher has a number of additional accomplishments so could be argued makes for a 'renaissance man' type of figure, a real rarity in these times. --Intriligator500 (talk) 22:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from voting multiple times. As for the sock issue, all I can say is if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.— Chris! c / t 22:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Heavily promotional in tone, without reliable sources independent of the subject that can be used to attest to his notability. This AfD is a mess of apparent sockpuppetry and counteraccusations but I see no policy-based argument for keeping. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

'UPDATE' I together with some friends have read through various Wiki articles including Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notability_in_Wikipedia, and Wikipedia:Notability and so have done our best to edit Kacher's page to conform to Wiki's standards. We have included reliable third-party sources and links showing book ISBN numbers, Kacher's publisher information none of which are self-published (Wiley & Sons, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Nuclear Physics A, etc), and links to major televised and radio interviews with Kacher (CNBC, Dow Jones, Bloomberg, etc) thus have done our best to address the issues of notability and source reliability. That said, please let us know what else is required to improve the page. Thank you. --Intriligator500 (talk) 19:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Nothing in the above comments by the obvious sockpuppets above demonstrates that the subject passes our notability guidelines. I would also note that the implied legal threat above ("we have also consulted with our attorneys at Reed Smith and are prepared to take this to a higher level if necessary") has not been withdrawn, as it only says "the legal issue is not against Wikimedia or Wikipedia". There is still an implied threat to take action against other editors. I don't know in what fantasy world arguments for deleting an article from an encyclopedia can possibly be a matter for consulting attorneys, but the editor making such threats should be blocked per WP:NLT so we can get on with our discussion in peace. Could someone more familiar than I with our drama boards please ensure that that is done? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

--Teardroprain (talk) 19:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The legal threat is withdrawn against any and all persons. According to Wikipedia, "If you make legal threats or take legal action over a Wikipedia dispute, you may be blocked from editing so that the matter is not exacerbated through other channels. Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing while legal threats are outstanding."
 * Is it inconsistent that the others mentioned earlier David Ryan, Boaz Weinstein, Martin J. Schwartz, Linda Bradford Raschke are not up for deletion, when their level of notability is equivalent? Additionally, it seems, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notability_in_Wikipedia that the definition of notability in Wikipedia has been in dispute. With respect to notability, the sources I see provided conform to Wikipedia's "no original research," are reliable sources (journals such as Nuclear Physics A, respected publishers such as Wiley & Sons, respected broadcast networks such as CNBC, Bloomberg, Dow Jones, and so on), and are verifiable (see ISBN numbers, see links to published works and broadcast pieces on television and radio).


 * Delete. Kacher is not notable, and the article reads like an advertisement in some places. Drewbug (talk) 23:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Regardless of whether or not the subject created this article himself, notability is not supported by significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Location (talk) 23:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per James B. and Phil Bridger inter al. The others "not up for deletion" may be brought to AfD if Teardroprain feels they are not notable - or if anyone else feels that way a\bout them. They have no bearing on this case. (It has happened in AfD that when someone compared an article with some others that some of them got deleted too...) As to refs - I can't get into the Reuters one due to a lack of Flash on this machine. The lbl.gov one mentions Kacher once as one of three graduate students. The Coryell Award is confirmed and is an undergraduate award of the American Chemical Society. What its standing is, I am not sure. The majority of the rest appear to be blog, video, associated sites or mp3. I could be wrong - will look again. Peridon (talk) 23:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

--Intriligator500 (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Rebuttal By the logic in this thread, and I'm no expert Wikipedian so please correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds as if, in this case, major broadcast networks, major publishers, and major scientific journals are not independent reliable sources. So if one publishes a book through a major publisher such as Wiley & Sons as Kacher did, it is not independent because the major publisher has an interest in seeing their author's work sell. And any major network such as CNBC or Reuters does not qualify because they too have a vested interest in having Kacher on their program. And a big four Auditor such as KPMG does not qualify because they are not independent, but were presumably hired and paid to do their audit work on Kacher's investment account. Thus California regulators who do their due diligence on all investment-related companies in California are also not independent because they are part of the field of investments. But by this logic, then at least one-third to one-half of Wikipedia entries about people should be deleted.
 * KPMG were hired to do a specific job, according to their letter quoted. They produced figures from what they were given as requested. They will do similar work for anybody who pays their fees. The table of percentages is relatively meaningless as it stands. I used to achieve profit margins of over 100% on concentrated acids (hydrochloric, nitric and sulphuric). Being still at school and selling to my peers, the quantities I sold were rather small, probably unlike Mr Karcher's dealings. The percentages were impressive, though... Peridon (talk) 17:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Attribution The reference headed with the words "Kacher et al, C. (1995)" is more commonly found as "A. Ghiorso et al" or some similar arrangement of Ghiorso, Lee and Somerville (in that order) who were the three senior authors. Will the scientists taking part in this discussion enlighten me as to whether this is a normal thing - I mean, is it normal to re-attribute a paper to a junior author in this manner? A free access link to the document is at http://www.osti.gov/bridge/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=10179987 Peridon (talk) 17:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Attribution response You are correct. I put it in to drive home the point that Kacher is part of this paper because someone claimed Kacher was not, yet he is listed as C. Kacher. I changed it to show as Ghiorso et al since he was the lead scientist.


 * Comment Many said some time ago that Wikipedia allowed for most any entry. While there may have been some basis for this claim years ago, some more recently feel the pendulum has swung to the other extreme of deep inconsistency in allowing some pages in while deleting other pages, and consequently not letting in enough information and setting the bar too high for notability and for what constitutes legitimate sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notability_in_Wikipedia discusses some of the controvery in what constitutes notability. A sequel is being done on http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-truth-according-to-wikipedia/. I am going to provide them with this debate topic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chris_Kacher as it shows much about how decisions are made. Please be assured, I'm a big supporter of Wikipedia as I use it as a resource. I want to see Wikipedia continue to grow in a positive direction. This means having balanced, rational views on entries. It seems this quality has been lacking here to some degree, first by imyoung whose straw man arguments which started this whole thing were then supported by JamesBWatson who admitted he didnt have time to go through Kacher's rebuttals. Then a mixture of keepers and deleters ensued. I do hope any and all rational arguments prevail. --Intriligator500 (talk) 19:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for changing the attribution. Peridon (talk) 20:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no doubt that rational arguments will prevail, so you have nothing to worry about on that point. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, I see no significant coverage in reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete If the discussion had not gotten this far, I would have deleted it as  hopelessly promotional under G11, and not capable of being encyclopedic without fundamental rewriting.  As there is some possibility that he may be notable as an investor, I actually started rewriting, until I saw how little in the present article could be used.  An article on someone of borderline notability  has a much better chance of being kept if it had refrained from extravagant claims, supported sometimes by dubious and misrepresented sources.  There is zero notability  as a scientist. One does not become notable by being a graduate student on a team that does notable  work, except in the extremely rare case that one has actually conceived it and has the chief responsibility. The profession of nuclear chemistry is not the same as the profession of nuclear physics, and the only reason to claim it would be a desire for self-publicity among those in a different profession who might be easily impressed.    As for music, being one of a Suzuki performing group is not notability as a musician--and cannot reasonable be restated to call oneself a "child prodigy".  and neither is making an essentially unknown recording of one's music. As for notability as an investor, a claim in an unpublished investment workshop is not a reliable source for anything. Being a portfolio management in an investment firm, rather than a principal, is conceivably notable, but only if there are very good sources for it from external parties.(David Ryan, whom the author mentions for comparison, is a principal in his own company.)  Being interviewed about stocks is not notability, unless it can be shown to have been regarded by reliable sources as an expert.  Writing a published book on investing can possibly be notability if the book is sufficiently notable, but at this point , the book is in only 10 libraries according to WorldCat. (Raschke, mentioned as comparison wrote a book that is actually notable .)  .    DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Clearly hopeless levels of promotion and COI. Ray  Talk 00:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Kacher is notable not just because of a claim in William O'Neil+Company, Inc's Advanced Investment Workshop, but because Kacher was interviewed in Kevin Marder's Conversations With Top Traders M. Gordon Pub. Group. ISBN 1-893756-08-4 as well as had big four auditor KPMG verify his account. The original document can be seen here: http://www.virtueofselfishinvesting.com/pdf/Chris-Kacher-KPMG-verification-letter.pdf. Since Kacher, like David Ryan, is a principal and portfolio manager in a registered investment advisory firm MoKa Investors, LLC, as the Ka, in MoKa represents his last name, he is subject to California regulators who verified his claims in January of 2010 of having achieved over 18,000% in the stock market.

Kacher's book published by John Wiley & Sons ISBN 978-0-470-61653-6 was just published August 23, sold out of its first printing in four days and is already being translated into Korean according to the publisher, so I would think the book will be available in many more than just 10 libraries as it continues to sell. It reached as high as #2 in both investing and finance on amazon.comhttp://www.amazon.com/Trade-Like-Bill-ONeil-Trading/dp/0470616539/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268601553&sr=1-2. Raschke's book has been out for many years. Kacher's book has been out for one month. That it is already in its second printing and has been translated into Korean and has achieved top 10 in three categories on amazon.com bodes well for the future of the book. Many investors have said on independent websites that the book is destined to become an investment classic, and videos have been made about it on numerous sites such as http://www.chartswingtrader.com/2010/09/stock-market-video-using-telechart-to.html.

As for Kacher's other accomplishments, he has been chosen to do the music for the upcoming musical production based on Homer's The Iliad, called Ilios, and has a number of other accomplishments in music. Granted, this has been discussed only on blog sites so by wikipedia standards, it is unproven. That said, documents exist showing his concert appearances on behalf of Suzuki each year in diffent parts of the world from 1974-1979, playing to audiences as large as 1500 people. His accomplishments in science could be argued as to their notability, but doesnt it add completeness to his entry to include this part of Kacher's career even if not notable? --Intriligator500 (talk) 02:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. This AfD is a hopelessly (and timewasting) lost cause. Time for it to be closed. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:47, 21 September 2010 (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.