Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dick Stoken


 * 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 no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Dick Stoken

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A financier and author. He has written 7 books on finance but none of them has many reviews on Amazon. Google News and Google itself don't return much that could be used to satisfy WP:V. Tagged for notability since 2010. There are two refs in the article the first of which points to a book store - where his books are listed as out of print. Szzuk (talk) 17:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Reviews on Amazon are not considered WP:Reliable sources, as far as I am aware. For someone whose first books were published from the late 1970s to early 1990s, I would not necessarily expect to find much on Google either. There are reviews and coverage of him (starting from 1966, 12 years before his first book was published) in digitised newspapers on Newspapers.com. I will try to add some. RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I have started adding some reviews and coverage of his work and writings. It should be sufficient already to show that he meets WP:AUTHOR. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete It appears that the article is referencing some local awards. No source is written about him as the subject. Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Reply I will remove the mention of the "award" (actually I can't - it's the name of the article). For WP:AUTHOR, he needs reviews of his publications, and that is what I added to the article. WP:AUTHOR does not require coverage of the author as subject. RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * delete Most of the references are based on his 1978 book predicting a depression was coming and everyone should sell their stocks. Extreme market views always generate a lot of press at the time but WP:NOTNEWS. The S&P 500 was at about 96 then and is now at 2664 so it wasn't a very accurate forecast. Not seeing the coverage to convince me the GNG is met.Sandals1 (talk) 15:39, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment 3 of the 10 reviews/articles are about his 1978 book - that is not "most". How is the accuracy of his forecasts relevant to his notability? One of the articles about his work actually says that his analysis wasn't accurate - the point is that other people wrote about him and his work. The first article, from 1966, is 26 paras long. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:16, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Struck my original vote. Not convinced either way. Think I'm biased against those seeking to cause panic for their own notoriety.Sandals1 (talk) 12:25, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That is generous of you! I have to admit that I looked into him in the first place because I'm biased against AfD nominations that don't look past Google (or Amazon!!!) for subjects which predate the digital era. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets WP:NAUTHOR, books have received multiple reviews, in addition to those added to article by there are also (oh no! trade reviews, but available online yaaay!:)); for The Great Game of Politics, Publishers Weekly - "Serious students of the American presidency will find Stoken's thinking a bit simplistic as well as present-minded. ..  But less-schooled readers may find some help in thinking about the approaching 2004 election.", Kirkus Reviews - "Amateurish exercise in political history, turning on half-correct assumptions and half-formed arguments. .. There’s nothing much new here, and nothing much worth remembering; readers would do better to consult the far more powerful work of Kevin Phillips and David Hackett Fisher, argued with a welcome dearth of exclamation marks. A PowerPoint presentation to Rotarians, maybe. A book, no." (ouch!!), Booklist - "There is nothing earthshaking here as Stoken lays out an analytical framework to track this ebb and flow back to George Washington's administration. .. Interesting and timely writing, especially for those who like their theories neatly packaged.", and Library Journal - " Unfortunately, the author's simplistic characterization of the ideologies of America's two main parties lacks objectivity, his interpretation of history is problematic, and his analyses of presidential politics seriously flawed." (reviews here), and the journal Long Range Planning reviews Strategic Investment Timing. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NAUTHOR only looks to number of reviews after it's established by sources that the body of work is significant or well known ("In addition"), but nothing cited establishes that. In fact, what's been quoted establishes the opposite, his body of work is neither significant, nor well known. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:21, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * titles held by multiple libraries, some only a few but, for example, Cycles around 300, so is significant/well known. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:21, 3 February 2019 (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.