Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Kacher (2nd nomination)


 * 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:55, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Chris Kacher
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not much seems to have changed since the previous AFD which concluded that he was not notable. This interview and this book review are the only references cited that approach RS, published since then, but neither are sufficient in my opinion to meet the thresholds of WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR given the obscurity of the sources. My own searches have not turned up anything better. SmartSE (talk) 10:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To get independent views.
 * Keep I'm no wiki expert as this is my first entry so please excuse me but for the life of me, I dont understand why Chris Kacher page would be deleted. Our group has used his investment techniques for many years. He's a celebrity of sorts in Japan which is one of 5 countries where his books have been published. He published several books for Wiley & Sons, the first was a bestseller http://amzn.com/0470616539. His CD http://itunes.apple.com/us/album/teardrop-rain/id334012790 has two songs that charted on iTunes https://web.archive.org/web/20130907231525/http://www.music-chart.info/artist/99489/Christian-Casher and here is proof Christian Casher is his stage name: https://store.cdbaby.com/Artist/ChristianCasher and www.christiancasher.com. He helped to confirm element 106 which his team named Seaborgium: http://www2.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/element.106.html. He has been interviewed on television and radio (one of many egs: https://web.archive.org/web/20110315085843/http://www.ytemagazine.com/articles-interviews/234-chris-kacher). He created the pocket pivot which is in use by us and other investors today: http://stockcharts.com/articles/scanning/2012/08/how-can-i-scan-for-the-pocket-pivot-setup.html. https://www.safaribooksonline.com/library/view/trade-like-an/9780470616536/. Egs of some of his interviews: https://www.equities.com/news/in-the-cockpit-with-the-selfish-investors-an-interview-with-chris-kacher-and-gil-morales. https://player.fm/series/s-and-a-investor-radio-w-slash-frank-curzio-your-best-source-for-finance-investing-and-economics/ep-192-dr-chris-kacher-why-etfs. https://www.jasonhartman.com/cw-275-stock-market-investment-concepts-with-dr-chris-kacher-and-gil-morales/Gericochea (talk) 22:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC) — Gericochea (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WP:SOCKSTRIKE
 * I worked with Dr. Kacher at UC Berkeley and at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Here's our papers on first discovery of element 110: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/037594749400775I first confirmation of discovery of element 106: https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.72.1423 which we named Seaborgium after Nobel Laureate Professor Glenn T. Seaborg who was our mentor. He published many other research papers in various nuclear science journals if you google 'C Kacher' such as https://journals.aps.org/prc/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevC.51.R2293. He also won the highly prestigious Coryell Award http://spinner.cofc.edu/~nuclear/coryell.htm?referrer=webcluster& which made Professor Glenn Seaborg insist he stay on as a graduate student under his guidance at Berkeley. Dr. Kacher then went onto fame as a nuclear physicist turned stock market wizard becoming the all-star trader under legendary investor William O'Neil which results in numerous publications on him including his book "How We Made 18,000% in the Stock Market" published by Wiley & Sons.Ambergrain888 (talk) 09:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC) — Ambergrain888 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WP:SOCKSTRIKE
 * Keep I've been paid to create this article. The entire article is based on secondary sources, and there are others available. His concept is used by traders in real life. Scientist, trader and musician, I think he's "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". For me this nomination looks a bit like punishment for (disclosing) paid editing, but I don't think this is the right thing.. Best, --Pozytyv (talk) 14:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep as far as I know this article fulfill Wikipedia  criteria and have reliable  references  about the person and secondly it's very old article  on Wikipedia  and many other great  administrators have discussed this discussion in the past years, I strongly  say keep this article  and as per Wikipedia  guidelines Truembp (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Reason: Though the article is in need of promotional tone cleanup or removal, I think the subject is known for originating a concept worthy of attention. I found that his concept was discussed in Modern Trader magazine, and in TrendFollowing.com by Michael Covel. Recently, an article in MarketWatch discussed his view. He also can be considered as a notable author, co-authored an article in Forbes.com and The Wiley Trading Guide Vol. 2; John Wiley & Sons is the publisher of his books. Someone has to rewrite the article. IYos (talk) 10:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Winged Blades Godric  04:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC) *Speedy delete with prejudice, as the paid editor behind this is using everything about the article, including this very AFD discussion, to make profit for whoever he's working for. Adding speedy delete template as this is a blatant case of WP:G11, and possibly WP:A7 as well. --Kirbanzo (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete with prejudice, because an article created by a paid editor, where almost every single comment are by sockpuppets, and the two others are an editor with 39 edits, and the paid editor himself. And seriously it looks like the entire AfD was being orchestrated for profit. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 15:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE
 * Comment: Removing this due to me being swayed by a sockpuppet. Sorry. --Kirbanzo (talk) 15:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Two votes above are based on prejudices, and not Wikipedia policies. The claims made are questionnable. They want to delete article because I complied with ToU, and disclosed my paid editing. I do not think that this is the right way of handling of paid editing here and that it motivates other paid editors to make a disclosure. I don't appreciate using socks though, and have no relation to them... ps. It is probably worth to mention that the article was created before paid disclosure policy appeared. Best, --Pozytyv (talk) 10:00, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your position, and am assuming good faith, but if you take on clients that are willing to disrupt Wikipedia to this extent, you should make sure you are least paid before they totally destroy any chance of the job you did surviving. I am not referring to your profit (which is still allowed under the TOU, but not popular) but instead the profit of your client who has clearly paid multiple freelancers to circumvent Wikipedia policy, in a way which is forbidden by the TOU, in order to publish a promotional article for public relation and/or search engine optimisation purposes. Unless you are still being paid, it may be an idea to cut ties here, before people start seriously questioning whether you are an innocent party here. I will point out that although influenced by the disruptive actions here, my viewpoint is based on the WP:NOTPROMOTION policy and compounded by the sock-puppetry, your own paid role in this is currently incidental only and would not on it's own have prompted me to recommend deletion with prejudice, though I would likely have recommended delete on promotional grounds and lack of notability anyway. The sources are not the best and don't really support the article, several are interviews (generally held to be primary sources) and others are incidental mentions. I hope this makes my viewpoint clear. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 10:33, 3 February 2018 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE


 * Delete. The Seaborgium bit is interesting but he was a grad student on the team. It's not a claim to encyclopedic notability in itself. He released some piano compositions, which have been viewed quite a lot on YouTube but haven't been critically reviewed or charted (I read that a remix got airplay in South Africa, but couldn't verify anything towards WP:NMUSIC). On the finance side, his main arena, there's a CNBC appearance but I couldn't find solid independent coverage of him as a subject, book review notwithstanding. In a way that's surprising, but there it is. I also don't see that he originated a significant concept, as one struck vote claims. As I read it, the book in question discussed applying O'Neil's principles, and the 120 year chart says "stock markets move with the news". I agree that this doesn't warrant an article. I've not factored in the pay involved in the editing (and of course it's important that disclosure is encouraged). Mortee (talk) 10:30, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete -- for lack of independent sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. A non-notable individual and likely a paid placement. Sources are passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - lack of credible, valid, and notable sources. --Kirbanzo (talk) 15:52, 5 February 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.