Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Chacon (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 Accusations of sockpuppetry aside (four of the single-purpose accounts have been checkuser-confirmed to be related), most "Keep" votes have no relation to the deletion policy. Those that do were soundly countered by those in favor of deletion. With no reliable sources, there is nothing to meet WP:BIO. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 22:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Christopher Chacon
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Most of the claims made in the article are dubious. Chacon does exist, and has appeared on a few TV shows, but the article seems to be exaggerating his accomplishments. There's no solid evidence that he has investigated "thousands of cases of paranormal phenomena"; all the article has for support are IMDB and some amateurish websites. Because I said so. (talk) 02:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC) — Because I said so. (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete Sources aren't very reliable at all (especially not the comcast.net link); none of the claims are really backed up by any reliable sources, and I couldn't find any good sources in a search. (This isn't very relevant, but I find it interesting that this AfD is the user's first edit. Long time lurker perhaps?) Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I do have some Wikipedia experience under my belt, but my interactions with "paranormal investigators" have always been stressful, so I didn't want to use my established account. Because I said so. (talk) 03:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I am a journalist and have been in the process of doing an article on Chacon, as well as several other researchers. I have spent the last two months following-up on the information and sources in the article and after some exhaustive work, have found them all to be accurate. The majority of solid supportable data is in publications that are not yet accessible by the internet or on multi-media sources (TV and radio interviews), but do support the information in the article. In further conducting interviews with individuals and companies he has worked with, as well as his own legal representation, the information was further corroborated as accurate. I have encountered significantly more questionable articles on Wikipedia than this one and see no reason why this article should be changed, let alone deleted. If the only issue is "the number of cases he has been on", (and may I point out that even doctors who are listed on Wikipedia who have clearly seen thousands of patients have no practical logical way of listing them all on here or of proving such a statement), then perhaps we could simply edit the article so it reads "He investigates cases" and remove any reference to the "thousands". I suggest NOT to delete this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scientific Resources (talk • contribs) 04:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)  — Scientific Resources (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Could you list these publications? Even if they aren't available online, one could find them in a library. Because I said so. (talk) 04:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete This information should be merged into the article for the show. Beware though, this afd was started by an admitted sock puppet diff and the other comment comes from a suspected sock puppet.--Adamfinmo (talk) 08:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Weak Delete Well, he does have some notability through Psi Factor: Chronicles of the Paranormal - but as the nomination says, sources are IMDB and fansites and so on only. An old version of the article cites some different sources - I couldn't find any of them nor a reason why they got removed from the article, but maybe someone has a way to check them and see if they are more than trivial mentions and can be used as reliable sources. Else I guess there's no way to have an article except for a stub about his role in the show, and as per Adamfinmo the show's article is a better place for that. --Minimaki (talk) 12:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep As I have stated above, I have followed-up on all the sources and have verified the 'information' in the article to be accurate. If desired, I could list each of the web-links here to show that the sites are not just simple "fan sites" as stated and are clearly substantial articles substantiating Chacon. I am in the process of gathering all the publications and TV news programs that I am using in my magazine article which corroborate this Wikipedia article. Among them is "National Geographic Explorer" TV episode which describes Chacon in almost the same manner as written in this article and also states that he has investigated thousands of cases. Clearly, as prestigious and well-respected organization as National Geographic would have certainly done their background research to have made these statements on the show. Among the publications includes an article from The Writers Guild of America Journal which also states many of the same claims as in this Wikipedia article. I should point out that it appears this article was reviewed/assessed and accepted as a Wikipedia article quite some time ago and so I am a bit curious why after being accepted by several other editors over a year ago is it now being re-reviewed. I feel Chacon's article should NOT be deleted because its sources are authentic and should NOT be merged with the TV show he worked-on because this article is primarily a 'bio overview' of Chacon who does not appear to only work in TV.Scientific Resources (talk) 14:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC) Keep (2nd vote deleted) I was able to directly communicate with the majority of individuals who authored the below articles to confirm and authenticate their information and stories. The majority of them interviewed Chacon directly and further confirmed his background and information with such credible individuals and organizations such as Dr. Peter Sturrock and Bernard Haisch with The Society for Scientific Exploration. Here are a few of the articles: "Latinola" Hollywood article, review/interview of LA Latino Film Festival lecture: http://www.latinola.com/story.php?story=4009 above article also listed at La Prensa San Diego Publication: http://www.laprensa-sandiego.org/archieve/2007/march30-07/darkside.htm About.com's article: http://paranormal.about.com/od/paranormalgeneralinfo/a/aa073106.htm Old WGA Journal Article: http://writtenbystemper.angelfire.com/ Old LA Weekly Article: http://hollywoodsgettingrealabouttheparanormal.weebly.com/ "Paranormal Frontier" website "Investigator Info": http://www.paranormalfrontier.com/topinvst.htm "World's Most Haunted" website "Investigator Info": http://www.worldsmosthaunted.com/Experts.htm IMDB Information: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1317666/bio further corroborated by Movietome website: http://www.movietome.com/people/49302/christopher-chacon/bio.html "Travel Lady" Article on Haunted Hotels: http://www.travellady.com/ARTICLES/article-hauntedhotels.html "Unexplained Mysteries" website article: http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/viewnews.php?id=69619 I could also list the TV news magazine stories/interviews, but for the sake of keeping this streamlined, will not list them for now. I respectfully feel this article should NOT be deleted and simply keep it as it currently is published.Scientific Resources (talk) 16:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: When all is said and done, if reliable sources about Mr. Chacon do not exist, then he is not notable enough for Wikipedia. What elements of WP:BIO does this fellow pass?    Ravenswing  15:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The article that survived AFD had newspaper sources, which seem to have been removed in favor of websites. Because I said so. (talk) 00:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * These sources just bring up more questions. I mean, listen to this, from the last link: "Chacon has encountered poltergeist and haunt phenomena that have ripped through walls, slamming anything it encounters to the ground. He has pursued an unknown biped creature twice the size of a human that charged through the jungle at over 60 miles per hour. He has dealt with a volatile demonic possession of an ancient Samarian entity that killed several people by mutilation before being contained. He has encountered an entire village that was experiencing a time-distortion anomaly. He was successful in capturing an individual who was using super-powered psychokinetic abilities to kill people. Chacon is one of the only scientific researchers in the world whose expertise allows him to investigate every type of paranormal phenomena imaginable." That's quite an impressive list of accomplishments. He sounds like a superhero or something. But if he's really achieved so much, then why must one dig through the corners of the internet to find any information about him? Why hasn't this guy been on the cover of Time Magazine, or some other mainstream publication? Because I said so. (talk) 00:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom - non-notable. Dreamspy (talk) 18:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep (3rd vote deleted) I cannot speak for the creative interpretation of each journalist who wrote these articles. Since all that was required is that various and credible sources be referenced, I found these and directly communicated with each author in order to confirm their credibility. Each of these articles was used by a credible and legitimate group/organization (i.e. the Latinola Hollywood article was in connection to a lecture Chacon gave at the Los Angeles Latino Film Festival, a legitimate event with confirmable sources). Again, I did not originally create this article, but based on the application and connection of each article to a credible group or website, based on the credible authors who independently wrote each article and lastly and based on the fact that Chacon was the Creator/Executive Producer of a multi-million dollar TV series (not to mention has been interviewed by credible TV new/magazine shows like Eye to Eye with Connie Chung, The Tom Snyder Show, Unsolved Mysteries and NBC Network News, just to name a few), I must give-way to the overwhelming practical facts that weigh toward the credibility of this article and sincerely feel it should NOT be deleted and remain intact and unchanged.Scientific Resources (talk) 01:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Please use the comment heading when adding further comments. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 03:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

reputable individual in the entertainment industry, having created, written and produced for TV. 3.) Chacon is involved with researching paranormal phenomena (whether he is regarded as an “expert” or not is irrelevant since it is a relative term and many of the web-articles and TV appearances consider him an “expert” and therefore has the right to use the term). Taking into account these three simple facts alone, this article should remain and not be deleted. Irrelevant to who wrote the articles on other websites and whether “all the facts” in those articles are accurate, the common denominators between all sources are the three facts I just pointed out. Because Wikipedia cannot stream or post video data from other mediums, specifically news or TV programs, means that those sources cannot be readily accessed, however, that does not mean that they cannot be used as a credible sources (if we cannot use NBC Network News as a fact source, than what can we use?). That being said, the additional fact that Chacon has been featured on numerous credible TV news and magazine programs, should add considerable credibility to him and his involvement in the researching of paranormal phenomena. This should be taken into account when considering this article.
 * Keep Lets firstly consider the undisputable facts in this article: 1.) Chacon is a real person. 2.) He is a

After reviewing all the previous discussions, I’m quite honestly having some difficulty in understanding why this person’s article is getting so much attention. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to see that Chacon is being recognized by other TV and website sources as a credible expert, even if Wikipedia editors don’t acknowledge it. I have encountered many other articles on Wikipedia that are more questionable, have more issues and in much more need of attention then this one. I think my points referenced herein strongly recommend, once and for all, to keep this article and either leave it just as it is or revise it so that the “wording” meets with everyone’s requirements (if that is actually possible).JusTheFacts (talk) 06:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC) — JusTheFacts (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I'd like to know exactly what these television programs said about Chacon. Many transcripts are available from Lexis-Nexis, so if you could provide some specifics, that would be great. Because I said so. (talk) 06:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. If Chacon has not been the subject of non-trivial coverage by independent reliable sources, then there is no proof of notability - and no way we can write an encyclopaedic article about him. Sheffield Steel talkstalk 20:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Lexis-Nexis might have some of the transcripts of these news programs, however, you need to be a subscriber to their services to access their database and I for one am not going to spend any money just to research sources on a Wikipedia article. I do however, personally remember seeing Chacon on one or two episodes of “Unsolved Mysteries”, a live news broadcast on KCAL Channel 9 News in LA and a couple of episodes of a series titled, “Sightings”, all featuring him as “a paranormal expert” and using his “scientific methods” to analyze cases of reported phenomena. I also recall that each intro to Chacon included the claimer that “he has investigated thousands of cases”. Obviously, none of these TV news/magazine programs are going to feature someone who is not a credible expert, so by reason of their utilization of Chacon, he must logically be regarded as a legitimate and credible professional in his field, at least according to all these news and TV programs, as well as the authors of each website. Taking into account all the information and sources and Chacon's credibility, the article has enough supporting sources to confirm it legitimate. I vote to “KEEP” this article.Wippersnapper (talk) 19:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC) — Wippersnapper (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment: The notion that TV programs only host credible and legitimate professionals is a giggler, I must admit. That aside, where are the reliable sources?    Ravenswing  19:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm glad you made that statement, since it brings us back to the primary reason we are even commenting on this article. You asked for “reliable sources”, but when you get right down to it, based on what you are implying in your response, there really are no such thing as reliable sources. Aside from all the other TV programs, if you do not consider “NBC Network News” as a reliable source, than how can you consider any source as reliable. Granted, there's no way of reading the transcripts from that old news report on the internet, but the facts remain that Chacon was featured on this news report, as well as many other news and magazine programs. And if you do not consider the Writers Guild of America Journal article, the IMDB Information and Bio or even the colorful lecture review from La Prensa San Diego Newspaper on Chacon’s lecture at LALIFF, as reliable sources, than I ask again, how can you consider any source as reliable? After reading the source articles in Chacon’s bio/article, as well as the various articles listed above in ScientificResources comment, I found that the total collection of all information warrants a degree of legitimacy to Chacon’s bio/article. I empathize with your scrutiny, after all, New York Times in recent years has proven that ‘reliability’ with information can be compromised at every level, but in taking this stance, aren’t we creating a massive slippery slope that will eventually result in the ongoing questioning of every article, no matter where the sources originate from? Based on your approach, all sources are questionable in one way or another which implies that this article, and for that matter, ALL ARTICLES, including those that have been previously accepted should all be reconsidered for deletion. Even if we were to personally contact the authors of each of the articles and the producers of each TV show and personally get them to confirm the validity of the information, how can we be “absolutely certain” of them or their own interpretation of the information? As much as Wikipedia is suppose to be about the “facts”, we have to at some point give some degree of the benefit of doubt to the writer of an article, which is exactly why every article has its sources listed at the bottom, so that the reader can gauge on their own the validity of the information listed. There really isn’t much to Chacon’s article as it is, let alone any claims that can be considered outrageously questionable. I still strongly vote to keep this article.Wippersnapper (talk) 02:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply: If you would like to debate what kind of sources fit Wikipedia policy, there are talk pages at WP:V and WP:RS where you can do that; feel free. As far as anything else goes, WP:V requires that every assertion "challenged or likely to be challenged" be sourced by a reliable source.  None of the sources you have listed are; they are a series of web-only blog posts, without any notion that they were ever published by publications with a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, as is required.  You've given no verifiable evidence that Chacon actually was featured on NBC Network News, nor do we know if the website article claiming to be from the WGA Journal actually was.  And so on.    Ravenswing  15:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't see the big deal here. The article and sources seem acceptable to me. Its been posted on here for over a year with no issues. Lets move on.1WikiEnforcer (talk) 18:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC) — 1WikiEnforcer (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep Very interesting and articulate discussion over this article. After thoroughly checking-out the sources and looking over the actual posted article, I'm fine with it and also think it should just stay as is.T A Watson (talk) 21:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC) — T A Watson (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment There certainly are a lot of SPAs who claim to have have checked out the article sources. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 22:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment What? Should I have not made a comment?T A Watson (talk) 00:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment You are most welcome to make a comment. Just bear in mind that the admin who closes this AfD may put less weight on your opinion when they see your contribution record. For maximum effectiveness, you should make an argument based on Wikipedia's deletion policy. Arguments based on our policies of verifiability and notability also tend to carry more weight. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 00:58, 17 April 2008 (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.