Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Dicks


 * 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 keep. No-one has attempted to demonstrate that the sources in the article are unreliable. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

James_Dicks

 * James_Dicks was nominated for deletion on 2006-06-19. The result of the discussion was "keep".  For the prior discussion, see Articles for deletion/James Dicks/2006-06-19.

This guy is not notable and there are very view factual reports about his activity Smtusa 17:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * KEEP James Dicks is very well known. He claims to be a best selling author, produces 12 hours of radio programming a day, claims to be the "world's leading expert in forex trading." There are 17,300 hits when googling for "James Dicks" and all the hits on the first several pages appear to refer to this guy.  The article has several links including a Fox TV news report, a feature Houston Press (alternative) newspaper article, a financial website "Stupid Investment of the Week."  And there are several rip-off reports.  There is no question that the guy is notable.  The article was originally put up as a puff advertising piece, and now that I've corrected it and made it NPOV, he wants to delete it.  The previous vote was to KEEP after the corrections were made.Smallbones 19:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Smallbones. I fail to see what has become deletion-worthy since the previous keep. - Lex 05:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Smtusa. There are numerous false claims in this article and unless it can be proven that the aligations are true, they don't belong in Wikipedia.  The whole article seems like it is trying to prove his guilt, when in fact he has never been convicted of these accusations. "He is reportedly the nephew of Charles Givens...."  Where is the proof.  Anyone can make statements like this and it seems this article is completely bias and draws conclusions without facts.  Writing in such a manner is liable.  FYI, it is not James Dicks who wants this article deleted (although I am sure he does), but me, for the sake of keeping Wikipedia free from bias opinions against those you don't like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.193.232.253 (talk • contribs)


 * keep Seems notable and the basic matters seem sourced. Unsourced problematic info should be subject to WP:LIVING of course but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have an article. Furthermore, most of the unsourced comments (like being the nephew of Givens) is not a WP:LIVING problem. JoshuaZ 23:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, notability seems pretty clear. Seraphimblade 04:26, 23 October 2006 (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.