Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Lighthart


 * 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. Counting 2 of the keep opinions as coming from one editor Kevin (talk) 22:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Edward Lighthart

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

What...WP:NOTABLE? Fails WP:BIO... BrianY (talk) 02:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Delete' - appears to be a rather complicated bit of a self-promotion for the novel "The Manufactured Identity". The cited news sources as far as I can tell are either self-published or "in on the joke".  I may be wrong but if so it would help if the article were re-written to be less like a short story and more like an encyclopaedia. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Keep' - I overheard a professor saying this case is going to be the standard example of dissocialize amnesia he will be using in his classes for years to come. I came here looking for more info. I do think this article has merit but I agree it should be reformatted to be more like a normal bio article. - Rich83202 06:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Keep' - As a psychological enthusiast and a sometimes lecturer of social work, mental health, psychology, counseling, I felt compelled to create this article as Mr. Lighthart's case is currently the most notable instance of dissociative amnesia on record. It is not meant as a promotion of the fiction novel The Manufactured Identity, and far from self-published references, most of the article references are from primary media sources, such as The Seattle Times or other newspapers. Finally, the controversial pieces, of which the primary one has been the parrallels between the Dr. Sommer novel, is important as this case has yet to be without controversy, and given that 50% of such cases of dissociative amnesia are characterized by those faking the disorder, I felt it necessary in accordance with Wikipedia neutrality doctrine to include the primary counter argument against Mr. Lighthart's veracity, although I am of the opinion he is most likely not faking. regards for your allowing these thoughts Rstero (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC) — Rstero (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The two 'keeps' above are the creator of the article, and the creator of a not yet released article on the author of the book referred to. There seems to be a fair bit of media attention, but I wonder how long this will last. Doesn't seem to have the potential of a Kaspar Hauser. I am rather suspicious about the parallels with the novel (as reported - I haven't read it and probably won't), regarding activities like this coming at the time of a book's release as more than coincidental. Peridon (talk) 15:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep – based on the following coverage by 3rd party – creditable and verifiable sources . An argument could be made to delete based on One Event.  However, in light of reading the articles listed above and the two other keep opinions. I can see a case being made that Mr. Lighthart will be the subject and focal point of further study with regards to dissociative amnesia in scholarly works.  Regarding the association with the just released novel “The Manufactured Identity” is supposition at best.  Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoessss (talk • contribs)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete - hard to assess, but the sources are so strange. If kept, the article needs a lot of work (e.g., stock for sock). Racepacket (talk) 05:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Having looked in the sources, I get a distinct whiff of self-promotion. It is interesting that apart from the two keeps at the top, no-one in the field has come forward to confirm that either the book or the subject of the article are going to be the definitive examples, or even that they are going to be used in any way at all. A single event in the life of someone who may have been around but is not particularly notable to my reading of things. Not even for managing to get $600 into a sock along with a foot. 6 x $100s maybe. Otherwise, uncomfortable... The novel itself doesn't appear to have been considered worth an article, so a possible emulation of it rather fails to be notable too. Peridon (talk) 16:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Check the piece now. I rewrote - wikified - added better references and categorized.  Hope it helps. ShoesssS Talk 12:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Tidier, yes. Increase in notability, no. Blog comments and readers' comments on a newspaper page don't take this beyond a one day minor (very) sensation. Still looks like a promotional stunt to me. Peridon (talk) 16:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It's got references, but it's full of "thought-to-have-been's" and similar. If there's nothing certain to be said, why say it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.156.120.186 (talk) 20:36, 14 October 2009 (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.