Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Weiner


 * 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 Userfy to User:Kirez. --MelanieN (talk) 23:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Keith Weiner

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails Wikipedia's Notability Criteria Rap7910 (talk) 00:05, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Does not meet notability criteria: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Seems only to be a marketing vehicle for the subject's non-notable blog writings." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rap7910 (talk • contribs) 00:12, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 11:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 11:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


 * delete promotional, unconvincing as to personal (versus company) notability, and Zero Hedge is not quite a BLP-suitable RS - David Gerard (talk) 16:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Original page creator 'kirez' today unilaterally deleted the delete suggestion, without comment. Isn't that against Wiki policies? Rap7910 (talk) 19:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, but he may not know that (though it is explained on the notice). I have put the appropriate warning uw-afd1 on his talk page inviting him to comment here. JohnCD (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * He just did it again. Rap7910 (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you checking the wiki links to news on Keith Weiner? Can you tell me which references, specifically, do not meet Wikipedia's standards?
 * Ryan, I appreciate your work, but you are unilaterally marking a page for deletion without justifying this judgment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirez (talk • contribs) 20:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Kirez, the burden of proof is on you to justify that the article meets Wikipedia's "notability" criteria. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)  I don't see that the subject meets any of these 3 criteria, for example: "1. The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times.  2. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.  3.The person has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication."  The only articles you provide suggest that the subject started and sold a company, and that he testified once before a committee of the Arizona state legislature.  Those are not notable. The rest of the articles are not "intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject", since they are written by the subject.  Rap7910 (talk) 20:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Kirez, it also appears you may be violating Wikipedia's "Conflict of Interest" policies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest. You appear to have a business or financial relationship with the subject. On your User page you write: "I study monetary metals (Gold, Silver) and am preparing to take an exam as a Private Equity Primary Market Broker (Series 82 license through FINRA), which will enable me to help investors protect their wealth from bank default and market risk by buying gold that earns a return. This market is being created by the Economics work, and Gold Standard advocacy, of Dr. Keith Weiner." Rap7910 (talk) 20:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * In answer to "Can you tell me which references, specifically, do not meet Wikipedia's standards":
 * Those currently numbered 1,2,11,12,13 are written by the subject, and therefore not independent
 * 3 is a press release--Kirez (talk) 03:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 4 does not mention the subject, and so cannot support his notability
 * 5,7,8,9 may be acceptable as references in support of the statements they follow, but do not include significant discussion of the subject
 * 6,10 are the same video. I don't have the patience to sit through all 90 minutes of it, but I suspect it fails on the same grounds as 5,7,8,9.
 * That's all of them. Maproom (talk) 21:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete, now that I've worked my way through the references and found no evidence of notability. Maproom (talk) 21:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with Maproom's assessment of the sources now in the article. I made a good faith search for better sources and was unable to find anything that would establish notability. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  00:26, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment, if you gentlemen will please help me to better present the references, I would appreciate it very much.
 * Bloomberg, Capitalism Magazine, The Globe and Mail, The Arizona Republic, Capital Accounts (Financial commentary show), Larry Park Show, Investing.com... how can I better represent these sources?
 * Three years as a committee member, and testifying subject matter expert, for both Texas and Arizona Houses of Representatives. (The video of the AZ Committee meeting, Dr. Weiner is the primary, centerpiece speaker. It's unmistakable to anyone who watches the video; or to anyone who understands these committee meetings.)
 * Is there any place for papers and articles translated into multiple languages and published abroad? I'm curious. E.g. paper for Greek PM Tsipras, published in multiple European countries.
 * Let's agree that I'm the wrong person to be writing this article. I have no problem with that. But I do know this field, and the significance of Keith Weiner's work. Can you please give me some support in presenting the material in a way which meets Wikipedia standards? I apologize for any clumsiness I've shown in this process, and I appreciate your feedback and guidance. --Kirez (talk) 03:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Reply: Kirez, I think we all recall our days learning about Wikipedia's extensive guidelines, and I'm sure there are people willing to help in matters of presenting things better. But that isn't really the issue here - the issue is whether there are sufficient independent, reliable sources that discuss the topic in depth.  Note that all three of those aspects are important: the references must be independent (especially not something written by the subject or from his company), reliable (preferably with a robust editorial process) and they must devote substantial space to discussing Keith Weiner (not just mention him in passing).  So to help progress this, please tell us all: which two or three references do you think are the strongest (considering these three criteria)?
 * Question I have understood the spirit of Wikipedia to BE BOLD... and I don't think a contributor is normally alone in writing, much less completing, an article. Won't it make sense to let some experienced wikipedia editors contribute to this page, before you delete it? Can you help me to understand your motivation, and your haste to delete this work? I've been enjoying this process, and being a contribution to Wikipedia. I understand it to be an Open Source, collaborative effort (am I wrong?). --Kirez (talk) 03:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Reply: Kirez, people here are making good-faith efforts to help you out, searching the web for evidence that would support the subject's notability, and not finding anything. It's great that you are a fan of the subject's work.  But the issue is: has the wider world 'taken note', has he made any impact, as proven by significant coverage in secondary sources.Rap7910 (talk) 12:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Acknowledgment This is a helpful article . Thankfully, I am not alone in my admiration of Keith Weiner's work! (I do wonder whether there are systematically neglected fields, niches and subject matter experts throughout Wikipedia, for demographic and career orientation reasons.) --Kirez (talk) 03:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - no actual claim of notability in the article, which also suffers from a certain amount of non-neutral writing - the latter can be overcome by rewriting the article, but as pointed out above, lack of notability is a content issue, not a question of how the article is written. I, too, fail to find any significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. --bonadea contributions talk 10:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Requesting Acknowledgment References include Forbes, The Arizona Republic, The Globe and Mail; media talk shows include 'Capital Account' hosted by Lauren Lyster; The Larry Parks show; video documentation includes Dr. Weiner speaking for the Arizona House of Representatives Committee on Gold Bonds; Dr. Weiner on panel of Austrian Economists at FreedomFest 2016 addressing the question of Whether financial collapse is imminent. I can point to wikipedia biographical articles of living persons with less notability, in the same categories. --Kirez (talk) 21:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never a good argument. There are other bad articles in Wikipedia, but this is why we have a deletion process - David Gerard (talk) 21:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This isn't really an "other stuff exists" argument: He's saying a bunch of newspapers have written about Keith Weiner. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:10, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I was responding to the last bit. But to answer the rest, tangential sources are tangential, and "Forbes" as a source, when it's that he just writes a blog there, shows a lack of understanding of WP:RS - David Gerard (talk) 23:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Kirez, Maproom, above, already gave feedback on many of your sources. Globe and Mail doesn't count toward notability, since does not name the subject.  Forbes articles are written by the subject, so not independent.  Etc.  Re the Larry Parks show: Larry Parks himself does not appear to be notable, so I don't think appearing on his show can count.  Ditto the "Arizona House of Representatives Committee on Gold Bonds" - not notable.  Ditto FreedomFest.  I assume that if a media source is itself not notable, then the subject's appearance in it cannot count toward the subject's notability (more experienced wiki editors, please correct me if I'm wrong.)  Rap7910 (talk) 21:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Max Browser (talk) 23:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Everyone, for your time and tutelage. I have two proposals:
 * 1) If I scale back the scope of the article, and
 * 2) Put the article in the "Proposed Articles" queue, proposing that I can contribute modest particulars, in a collective effort, and
 * 3) Add material in various topically related articles (For example, an article by Keith Weiner on Market Monetarists gives a fantastic critique that would improve the current Wikipedia article on Market Monetarism).
 * Will this be a more successful approach? Assuming, of course, that more media sources become available on Keith's work. --Kirez (talk) 04:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello . If the article is deleted, you can request userfication which will allow you to work on a draft article in your user space. As for whether an article by Weiner is appropriate as a reference in Market monetarism, that would be up to the consensus of editors interested in that article. Your comment "fantastic critique" hints that you may have problems with the neutral point of view when it comes to Weiner and his work. Wikipedia is not a forum to promote your pet causes. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . Is there a difference between Userfication and Proposed Articles? --Kirez (talk) 19:43, 14 September 2016 (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.