Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Les Golden


 * 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. given the information that emerged in the discussion, could just as well have been G11, but since the 7 days is over, an ordinary AfD will do. Some comments were made in this AfD that would seem to me to violate our BLP policy: AfD, though not mainspace, still does not have license to insult the subject of an article, regardless of provocation. I suggest a courtesy blanking if another admin agrees with me.  DGG ( talk ) 01:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Les Golden

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Ok, what we have here is an article with, as of this writing, 57 refs for only five paragraphs on content. One would think that notability would not be in question with more than 10 refs per paragraph, but look a little closer and a different picture emerges. Some of these supposed references are written by the subject of the article. A great deal of them are from the local paper in the Chicago suburb where he lives. A paper which will apparently print obvious self promotion and which I would suggest does not qualify as a relaible source. Some of the sources mention the subject's name and that he was involved in this or that small project without offering any more in-depth information. And some of them are simply writings about gambling techniques that do not have an author's name attached and do not mention the subject of this article at all. In short, this is classic puffery in the form of ref-bombing. The article subject is a shameless self-promoter and main author, under various names, of several articles about his own accomplishments, most of which have now been deleted. In short, it appears to me that Les Golden has attempted to use Wikipedia to promote himself, and that his notability in any field is not significant enough to merit an article. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * (edited to add:) Delete Fails WP:BIO. References fail the requirements of "independent" sources. Keep Appears to satisfy WP:Bio and WP:N. Substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources.  The nominator's apparent rejections of the Chicago Tribune as a "reliable source"  for having an article about this person is asinine. Edison (talk) 02:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I would guess that the nom was referring to the Wednesday Journal of Oak Park and River Forest, which is cited in this article even more than the Chicago Tribune. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The Tribune is obviously not the "local paper in the Chicago suburb" referred to in my nomination. The Oak Park paper is of course what I was referring to. I thought I practically drew a map to that conclusion, but apparently I was not explicit enough to stop Edison from jumping to this asinine assumption. Anyway, I don't think we can consider them a reliable source, there are indications that they have allowed Golden to engage in "real world sockpuppetry" by publishing overtly promotional articles Golden wrote about himself under a pen name. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification of the vague dismissal of a newspaper. An article in a local Oak Park paper can provide useful detail, but I agree it counts for less in establishing notability than a major paper such as the Tribune. I've seen a number of instances of an AFD nominator rejecting something as a reliable source merely because it has significant discussion of the thing he is trying to delete. Edison (talk) 18:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know why I am having such trouble getting you to understand this, you don't seem to be registering at all what my objection is to the Oak Park and River Forest Journal, which is odd because I unambiguously explained it in my remark right above yours. . They have allowed Golden to write articles about himself using a pen name. That is not the type of journalism engaged in by reputable news sources. They should not even be considered valid for verification purposes, let alone establishing notability. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I also don't understand the debate here. HE WROTE THIS ARTICLE HIMSELF ABOUT HIMSELF.  He used as references fraudulent press releases he had submitted under various women's names to the suburban version of the Trib called "Triblocal".  Those press releases have since been removed, and the claims referenced in this article were thus also removed. He had listed himself in a good dozen categories as notable, all of which have been removed now.  So what's left?  He says he's a gambling writer, but the gambling folks here say he is not known in the field, and has been vandalizing articles in order to get a book deal.  He says he's an "astronomer" and "professor", but that too has not been substantiated by anyone other that one of his sock accounts.  Can the KEEP folks please point to anything NOT written or sourced by Mr. Golden which attests to his notability? WikiMrsP (talk) 20:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox and WikiMrsP seem to be familiar with this editor and his socks, and seem to assume that all editors should be equally familiar. Suddenly WikiMrsP mentions that his local press articles are self-written. I do not assume that all articles about a person in some paper in a town the size of Oak Park, Illinois (population over 51,000) are in fact written by himself under pseudonyms. Maybe they were in this case. We usually take a newspaper in a town of that size as a reliable source. But it would have been well to refer to the CU and sock investigations, and to discussions on this article's talk page, rather than assuming universal knowledge. My "keep" will probably become a "delete" on review. Edison (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you are willing to reconsider, but in actuality I did mention this twice already when replying to you. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've checked out the Trib articles, and yes, it's obvious that he wrote these under a pen name. The "author", in this case, only writes about Les Golden, and writes in his own style. Rklawton (talk) 02:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I wish Beeblebrox would read Theory of mind. He asserts in 2 replies to my first post that all the articles about this person were written by the person. He knows from various discussions in other Wiki fora that HE has participated in that this is so, but does not link to any CU or any talk page, yet assumes that other readers should know why his assertions should be assumed to be true. Sadly, AFD participants say all kinds of unsubstantiated things, so I do not automatically assume that every assertion by an AFD nominator or Keep or Delete !voter is true. Please provide a LINK when you assert something, or you may expect your assertions to be questioned. "Mentioning" is very far from being sufficient proof! I note that at least one editor, JFMcKeown, accused of being a sock has not been found to be any such creature. Do you feel compelled to claim that I am also a sock? That would smack of the Salem witch trials. Edison (talk) 04:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Neither Beeblebrox nor I asserted that ALL articles about Mr. Golden in local suburban papers were self-written. This article used to be considerably longer, and many of his claims were referenced by press releases on the Triblocal website which were obviously written by Mr. Golden and which have since been removed from this article and from the Triblocal website.  The Wednesday Journal is in fact a reputable independent paper which has won many awards, and which publishes letters and Op-ed pieces by Oak Park residents, including one by Mr. Golden of that is still ref'd on this article, as well as many articles about his failed political campaigns, his battles with the Park Department, and his trespassing conviction. WikiMrsP (talk) 15:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable writer on gambling, regularly published in some magazines. User:Fred Bauder Talk 03:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep An extreemly citated artical on a signifigant and well known writer on the topic of gambling. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 03:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. This article needs to be reorganized. If this person's notability is as a gambling writer, then a much higher percentage of the article should be about his activities in the gambling field. Currently, about half of even the "Gambling writings" section is about his activities in astronomy and acting. I would recommend either reducing the non-gambling content of the article, or increasing the gambling content of the article, or better yet both. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Stubify first Delete. Update: Sufficient work has been done by other editors investigating Golden's claims to notability and as of now the subject does not appear notable. The article is a puff piece written by the subject using multiple socks while actively denying any connection to those socks (see here for one example). At this point it's nearly impossible to trust any of the edits made by the subject and given that the majority of the references cannot be verified online my suggestion is to get rid of all the sources (and associated text) that cannot be verified by someone other than the subject (most likely this will mean keeping only online sources) and then see what's left.  Maybe Mr. Golden will turn out to not be notable in which case AfD would be appropriate or if he is then we'll have streamlined the article to just the barest facts (with reliable sources).  I know Wikipedia allows offline sources but if no one is able to verify them and given who added them in the first place then I think it's OK to get rid of them. SQGibbon (talk) 07:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete The claim is that he is a notable writer on gambling. But, he is not mentioned in any books on gambling, has developed no theories, data, strategies, or other works referenced by other writers, and appears to be unknown in the field.Objective3000 (talk) 11:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Comment - I've got it 80% decrufted now. The fact that he was a Republican Congressional candidate goes a long way towards notability for me. There are absolutely claims to be made on an academic and gambling-writer basis as well. With a little more regular editing, this piece should be encyclopedia-worthy... Carrite (talk) 16:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Being an "also ran" candidate is not usually considered a valid claim to notability, especially in the States where the press is required by law to give equal coverage to all certified candidates. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, there is no such law in the United States. You may be thinking of the equal-time rule, but (a) that only applies to broadcast television and radio; (b) the rule has so many exceptions that it is almost meaningless; and (d) most local stations, in dealing with the Republican primary in a heavily Democratic district, would give, at best, minimal coverage to the candidates in that race. (Only the more competitive Congressional races tend to receive significant television coverage.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears he was one of 18 people that registered for the primaries for that position. The article seems to suggest that he was the Republican candidate. Unless I'm mistaken, according to Danny_K._Davis, the Republican candidate was Randy Borow and there were three other candidates in the general election. There is no mention of Les Golden.Objective3000 (talk) 16:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You are not mistaken. Here are the official results of the U.S. House of Representatives primary elections in Illinois for 1996. It notes 11 Democrats, 3, Republicans, and 3 independent/other. It does not mention Les Golden getting even a single vote. And here are the final results, compiled buyt eh Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives. The Illinois District 7 Republican nominee is listed as one "Randy Borow" and again Les Golden is not mentioned The claim that he was the nominee is now sourced solely to the Wednesday Journal of Oak Park and River Forest which as I've mentioned I do not believe we should consider a reliable source.   Perhaps now it is becoming clearer what we are actually dealing with here. Les Golden is absolutely shameless about promoting himself and doesn't let a little thing like a fact get in his way. Just because he fooled his local paper doesn't mean we should let him do it to us as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * See also Articles for deletion/Near Earth Asteroid Reconnaissance Project and Articles for deletion/Center for Computational Astrophysics for more information on wacky, largely imaginary claims to fame by Golden. I would also note, and I'm somewhat dismayed at feeling like I have to even point this out, that being published in magazines and gambling websites is not really an indication of notability. Being written about in reliable sources is. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete This article was created, edited, sourced, and defended by Mr. Golden and his sockpuppets, for which he was blocked. The only Chicago Tribune ref is to his father's obituary.  Even in his hometown, he is known mostly for his self-promotion as the town gadfly, for his monomania regarding the parks department, and his recent conviction for trespassing. It is very likely he was using Wikipedia to resuscitate his image, which he has himself destroyed with comment gems such as on this article (the first result when you google "Les Golden").  Seriously, we have all spent way too much time on this article.  He had a piece in Nature when he was a young man, has dabbled in a bunch of different stuff ever since, and does not seem to be legitimately notable in any field. WikiMrsP (talk) 17:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't see any role in his life for which he is notable. I see no significant coverage from out of state and modest coverage at the local Chicago Tribune. I don't think the list of sources is sufficient to pass the WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I was asked to reconsider my delete vote and I don't understand why. There is nothing to suggest any national or international notability in this article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per Tony and all the above. KillerChihuahua ?!? 21:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per Beeblebrox. Wikipedia is not a reputation laundrette. Ella Plantagenet (talk) 23:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Additional Comment Sorry, but I need to add this and apologize if I'm not doing this correctly. Three plus months ago, I removed edits to Blackjack made by DianneSteele about an unknown person in the field obviously making false promotional claims. I received a phone call from Les Golden. I was quite unnerved by this call as I had never considered the possibility of getting a telephone call as the result of an edit. Seriously, this is weird. He told me that DianneSteele was a PR person that had advised him that Wikipedia is a good place to become known, so that he can point publishers to WP to prove he is known in the field, so he can publish a book on Blackjack. I told him that I was afraid that he had this backwards. You do not use an encyclopedia to become notable. You are added to an encyclopedia BECAUSE you are notable. I also told him that I am mentioned in 22 respected books on gambling, and do not think this makes me notable to the point of addition to an encyclopedia. (He is mentioned in no books.) It later turned out that DianneSteele was one of, I think, 11 socks of his. After I refused to stop removing the edits, he invented another sock to attack me on two odd pages. I have avoided discussion on this for some time, as I looked him up, and he makes me nervous.Objective3000 (talk) 00:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If I'm not mistaken Diane Steele was also the byline used in the ridiculous puff piece the Oak Park Journal ran on Golden that was used to support the now deleted Near Earth Asteroid Reconnaissance Project article. I note that story is no longer visible on their website. They must have realized they'd been flimflammed. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Objective--I would suggest that you have a sysop delete the history, which continues to show your personal information that you would prefer now be private.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete never mind that the article was created by the subject with the misguided intention of promoting himself without regard to our rules. We can't delete an article on those grounds, though it raises a red flag that perhaps the subject isn't notable since he had to do all that work himself. Thus the question at hand is whether or not this guy is notable. The answer: his work isn't cited, he hasn't received any awards, and he hasn't received any significant press coverage. In short, the guy is a nobody that nobody other than himself is going to want to read about at this point. Rklawton (talk) 02:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Couldn't have expressed it better. Edison (talk) 05:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. A couple of small-town newspaper stories and a lot of sources that don't seem to be about the subject don't add up to a pass of WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. After posting this I received a Wikipedia email, purportedly from Golden, canvassing me in an attempt to persuade me to change my !vote. I consider this to be grossly inappropriate. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Canvassing rules are esoteric, normal humans will try to win support for their cause and the fact that it is regarded as "grossly inappropriate" as part of Wikipedia's culture shouldn't necessarily be projected upon a broader public. I've also been in contact with Dr. Golden today and have attempted to explain the deletion process and why this article was "in trouble" to him. Obviously, he feels personally attacked here, but like I told him, this is a tough neighborhood populated by committed volunteers ultimately haggling over their fundamental visions of this project, and he's not meant to see this. Okay, where are we? Tossing out the political campaign, there are two potential paths to inclusion — as a gambling writer (including a publication on applied probability theory in a peer-reviewed journal), and as an academic. Both of those angles are outside my normal area of concern, but I would ask that someone familiar with the notability claims of academics examine how widely-cited his work is. This article is probably doomed in the eyes of most by virtue of having been written by a publicist in association with the article subject, as shown by the edit history, but what we should be considering is whether the subject is itself worthy under our notability guidelines. Carrite (talk) 17:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Begging Dr. Golden's pardon for quoting part of a personal email without asking him first, he explains the confusion about the election here: The confusion arising from my U.S. Congress candidacy was not of my own making. I was a candidate, defined in Illinois as one who files a petition with signatures and a statement of candidacy, in the Republican primary.  A wiki editor...altered that statement to my "losing" the election.  That was not verified nor is it correct.  I was removed from the ballot after a Democratic Party challenger objected to my “Cut the Taxes” nickname and the Cook County, Illinois, machine was able to sustain the objection.  I never appeared on the ballot.  The misrepresentation is due to lack of due diligence on the part of a wikipedia editor. Carrite (talk) 17:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification. The line “In 1996, he was a Republican Party candidate for U.S. Congress in the predominately Democratic 7th Illinois Congressional District, using his ‘Cut the Taxes’ nickname” was added by Tallllnoisyninja, later identified as a sock and blocked. No matter what the technical definition, this seems misleading as he was not on the ballot for even the primary, much less the general election. The fact that he finds reason to put blame on the Cook County ‘machine’ and a WP editor is unfortunate. In any case, the explanation clearly suggests lack of notability.Objective3000 (talk) 17:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * To answer your question about academic notability: Google scholar search finds only one paper with double-digit citations, and an h-index of 3 (I think, discounting the papers that seem to be by other people). The quasar article mentioned in the text is in a very good journal but has absolutely no citations in Google scholar. DIfferent people have different standards for what is enough to meet WP:PROF — some will say that an h-index of 10 is enough, others would like to see more than that, or multiple triple-digit-citation papers, or clear evidence of being one of the leading researchers in some specific topic. Regardless, I think it's clear that what we see from this search is not enough. So I think any notability is going to have to rest on his popular writings on gambling rather than his academic work or his unsuccessful political campaigning. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. I've checked the stats related to academic notability, as requested by Carrite. WoS (the definitive source for physics-related work) does show several papers from the 1970s, but they are not highly-cited with respect to our conventions here. Citation counts are: 34, 9, 5, 0, 0, ... (h-index = 3). Fails everything in WP:PROF. Agricola44 (talk) 18:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC).
 * Delete inadequate sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC).


 * Comment - Many of the references in the article don't have hyperlinks. These may serve to establish notability:
 * Kogan, Rick (2005), “Lawyer also designed, built bars,” Chicago Tribune, July 24, p. IV-7
 * (1983). “Rosary prof makes stars come to life for ‘ET’ class,” Suburban Sun-Times (West), July 1, p. 14
 * (1983). “People Focuses on Fellow Who Makes ETs His Specialty,” Wednesday Journal of Oak Park and River Forest, November 16
 * (1995) "Cut the Taxes" seizes a golden opportunity to run for Congress, Wednesday Journal of Oak Park and River Forest, December 20, p. 12
 * Northamerica1000 (talk) 01:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I have access to the Rick Kogan article mentioned above. It's an obituary article (a proper article, not a paid death notice) for Les Golden's father Irving Golden. The only mention of Les in the article is the following quote:
 * At home, "Dad was incredibly handy around the house, and performed all but the most major work even into his 90s," said son Leslie. "He enjoyed working in the yard and had an extensive rose garden."

There is no mention of Les's occupation in the article nor anything that would contribute to establishing Les's notability there. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And, at the risk of repeating myself, I strongly believe we should not consider the Wednesday Journal of Oak Park and River Forest a reliable source, for all the reasons already detailed above. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The New York Times has had its failures too, but is not ruled out absolutely as a reliable source. The "Wednesday Journal of Oak Park and River Forest" was named the state's best weekly newspaper in 2008 by the Illinois Press Association, per and again in 2009: . It received numerous awards from that association in 2011: . Since other articles related to these towns may come up in the future, perhaps you should take your views to the reliable sources noticeboard, to see if there is a consensus that the paper is absolutely not a reliable source. Should all articles be purged of references to articles in this paper? Or did they just get hoodwinked by the one self-promoter? Edison (talk) 15:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the companion issue for such publications (neighborhood papers, glossy business district bulletins or circulars, local tourist or shopper-type publications, etc) is that they do not have the impact of mainstream publications (big city newspapers, national news magazines, etc). By definition, they focus on items that are predominantly of local interest, e.g. school board elections and such, and have very limited circulation and/or readership. Not that these things wouldn't help, but arguing a case largely on such sources alone shows nothing beyond a person being of local interest. Agricola44 (talk) 18:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC).

I would like to correct an inadvertent misstatement by an editor concerning my race for the 1996 U.S. Congressional seat.

At 16:16 09/4/2011 TallIllinosyninja wrote:

In 1996, he was a Republican Party candidate for U.S. Congress in the predominately Democratic 7th Illinois Congressional District, using his "Cut the Taxes" nickname.

At 16:48 09/04/2011 Rklawton in good faith edited that to read:

In 1996, he ran as a Republican Party candidate for the United States Congress and lost in the predominately Democratic Illinois's 7th congressional district, using his "Cut the Taxes" nickname.

That editing is incorrect. In addition, the referenced article does not provide that information. In Illinois you are a candidate by virtue of submitting nomination papers. That was the statement in the post that was initially placed and the basis for the newspaper article. The “dubious” note placed on the page refers to the inappropriate edit by Rklawton. The initial post is correct. Rklawton’s post, made in good faith, of 09/04/2011 should be reversed.

To verify that the lengthy feature article “Who is Les Golden?” in the Wednesday Journal (Trainor, Ken (1997), “Who is Les Golden?”, Wednesday Journal of Oak Park and  River Forest, April 2) was written by a staff member and not Les Golden, a fair-minded wikipedia editor need only call the Wednesday Journal at 708-524-8300 and ask for the senior writer who wrote the article, Ken Trainor, or email him at ktrainor@wjinc.com. I have uploaded the first page of that article (zerox reduced because the format of the newspaper is 12 inch x 14 inch) to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:drlesmgolden. I have received permission from the publisher of the Wednesday Journal to do so. Here is a transcript of those first few paragraphs.

Let's say there was a local character who has a B.S. and M.S. in engineering physics from Cornell University; earned an M.A. and Ph.D. in astronomy from the University of California in Berkeley; is a professional actor; a former stand-up comedian in San Francisco and L.A. and an improv performer with Chicago's Second City, is a freelance jazz and theater critic and playwright; is president of his own software development company; gives lectures on UFOs and the possibility of extraterrestrial life; was listed in the Marquis “Who's Who in Science and Engineering;” and every July 4 either he or his twin brother lead the band that precedes the fireworks at the local high school. You'd accuse us of making him up, right? Wait, it gets better. Let's say all of that is not enough. Let's say this guy wants to make his mark in politics. . . only he insists on filing under a nickname which usually gets him tossed off the ballot. . . (Continued on page 36)

In addition, for those wishing to contact the Wednesday Journal, ask for Marc Stopeck. mstopeck@wjinc.com. He is the author of the cartoon strip one of whose main characters, “Moe Silver,” president of the “LOVE” party, was modeled after me, “Les Golden,” president of the “CARE” party. His cartoon strips, “Shrubtown,” were made into a play by the same name and produced professionally on the stage. All references to those comic strips were deleted on my article. The wikipedia editor, WikiMrsP, in particular, as an apparent resident of my town, who quizzically claims I lack notability but who knows all about me, I would guess from reading about me in Chicago-area newspapers, can verify that Ken writes for the WJ, that Marc is the cartoonist for the WJ, and that the cartoon strip Shrubtown was made into a play and produced professionally. Her doing so will save conscientious editors the chore of contacting the WJ themselves if they wish to do so.

Let me make this clear. I do not claim notability based on local politics. My national and international notability is based on being a gambling writer and, nationally, as a political figure. (I should say, however, that I don’t know of any gambling writer who has a main comic strip character modeled after him.) These references are simply to dispel the concerns that conscientious editors at wikipedia are expressing about the veracity of Wednesday Journal authorship and to clarify the commentary concerning my congressional candidacy in 1996.

Thank you for allowing me to provide this information. Drlesmgolden (talk) 15:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's get something straight. Even if that piece isn't yet another stunt you engineered yourself, the Journal is a small local paper and not sufficient for establishing notability. I also note that you have now scanned the article and uploaded it, claiming that the paper actually released it into the public domain . I find that claim as unlikely as many others you have made. Also, we are not going to call the newspaper and talk to somebody in order check the veracity any of your claims. That is now how this works. Wikipedia works on verifiability, not truth. What some guy says on the phone is not verification of anything, and can't be used a source for a Wikipedia article. Not that it particularly matters whether a comic strip in that same local paper was based on you or not anyway as that still is not a valid claim to general notability. I have no doubt that many residents of Oak Park know all about you as you seem to be willing to go to any lengths to get your name in print. That does not mean you are generally notable in the way Wikipedia defines the term. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello again,

Editors David Eppstein, Carrite, Northamerica1000, and perhaps others have implicitly or explicitly asked for more citations in either my writer role or my political role. Administrator Fred Bauder has suggested I’m notable in both categories.

The article began with over 100 references, then after the first tidal wave of editing it was down to 57, now it’s down to 14. The important ones in establishing notability have all been deleted. I cannot quibble with conscientious editors who view the article and judge that, in its present state, no references exist to establish notability.

The following text with its numerous references will I believe help establish my notability before the scrutiny of conscientious editors. It looks like a lot, but the text is concise. It has about 25 references in magazines, newspapers, websites, etc. The majority are online citations, as is the wish of conscientious editor SQGibbon. None are from my personal websites. I’ve checked out the syntax in Preview Mode.

The text, without the references, reads: He has won awards for his writing, his research into the gambling game of 21 has been published in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, he holds the Ph.D in astronomy from the University of California, Berkeley, some of his early research in astronomy appeared in a book by [Stephen Hawking], he is a nationally-referenced animal welfare advocate, and he is a professional actor. His political candidacies for U.S. Congress and State Representative using the nickname “Cut the Taxes” have led to court actions, a re-writing of Illinois election law concerning allowable names on the ballot propagated throughout the state of Illinois in election guides for candidates, lengthy discussions in the Illinois Institute of Continuing Legal Education (IICLE) handbook on election law which is on display in courthouses in the state of Illinois, scholarly studies on election law and ballot access, and rewriting of election law in other states.

The text, with the references, reads: He has won awards for his writing,  his research into the gambling game of 21 has been published in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal,  he holds the Ph.D in astronomy from the University of California, Berkeley,, some of his early research in astronomy appeared in a book by [Stephen Hawking],  he is a nationally-referenced animal welfare advocate,  and he is a professional actor. His political candidacies for U.S. Congress and State Representative using the nickname Cut the Taxes have led to court actions, a re-writing of Illinois election law concerning allowable names on the ballot    propagated throughout the state of Illinois in election guides for candidates,   lengthy discussions in the Illinois Institute of Continuing Legal Education (IICLE) handbook on election law  which is on display in courthouses in the state of Illinois, scholarly studies on election law and ballot access,  and rewriting of election law in other states.

In addition, the beginning of this DELETE discourse is marked by a deletion by a hard-working editor on 10/17/2011. The paragraphs displaying my contributions helping to establish notability as a gambling writer (on the basis that the editor never heard of me) were deleted, although the paragraphs were referenced and one of the contributions appeared in detail in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal. Within one-half hour a second hard-working and conscientious editor placed the DELETE tag. The first hard-working editor on 9/3/2011 or 9/4/2011 also had deleted a quote from the editor of Gamblingonline, a print journal based in London for which I write, on the basis that it is simply one of thousands of online gambling webpages. A simple google of “gamblingonline magazine” will show it is in fact a print magazine. The top google entry reads: “Gambling Online Magazine - The largest print magazine for online gambling in the world covering poker, sports, casino and lifestyle.”  I only write for print magazines on assignment.

I am sorry the editor who deleted that material was not aware of this prominent magazine but in good faith believed it to be only internet fluff. I therefore respectfully request a fair-minded and conscientious editor among you to:

1. Reverse the deletion by Objective3000 on October 17 with the note that  “adequately-referenced material should not be deleted” or words you consider appropriate.

2. Reverse the deletion by either Objective3000 or Rklawton on September 3 or 4 concerning the quote that “fortunately for readers, he’s also a great blackjack player” by Chris Lines, my editor at gamblingonline, with the note that “gamblingonline magazine is a respected print magazine, not an online webpage as claimed by the editor” or something you consider appropriate.

Thank you for reading this post. I greatly appreciate your time and energy spent hereon to make this article wikipedia-worthy. Drlesmgolden (talk) 17:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Published author of gambling articles with zero awards is simply not notable. Maybe (but I doubt it) the court cases influencing election law are notable, but that doesn't mean the individual behind the case is notable. We have thousands of articles about notorious crimes but not about the criminal for the same reason - it's the crime (or in your case the case) that's notable and not the individual. Next - we do not create biographical articles for election losers and are even less inclined to publish an article about someone who never appeared on the ballot. Moving along - your claim to be a professional actor is technically true and at the same time patently absurd as grounds for notability. You had a bit part in a movie that was nothing short of horrible and seen by virtually no one. Lastly, your academic research is quite typical for non-notable dead-end academics who fail to make tenure. In short, Stephen Hawkins is notable. You are not. Rklawton (talk) 19:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: These sources make no showing of notability in the current article, my searching reveals no different.  I am extremely troubled by the gaming of the article by someone who apparently knows a lot about gaming.--Milowent • hasspoken  17:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The subject is now personally weighing-in with lengthy comments. This usually marks a dramatic downward trend, judging from past AfDs. Agricola44 (talk) 18:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC).
 * There should be an essay on this, if there isn't already. E.g., Whatever you do, don't comment in your own AfD.  Because you can self-create an article and self-edit an article or use socks, canvass editors on the sly, and do other nasty things, and these will be strongly frowned on, but possibly may not be fatal.  But when you start making strong lenghthy pleas as to your own notability in an AfD about yourself, you are DOOMED.  In fact, I think I will publish a book on this topic and then write a wikipedia article about myself and my book.  But I will not comment on my deletion discussion.--Milowent • hasspoken  19:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The Chicago Tribune is not local coverage. I found the article at and it quotes him and his opinions throughout the article.  His run for office got ample coverage.  There is a picture of him glued to a tree and comments about his crazed protest in one news source.  The bulk of coverage for this person is behind paywalls, so no way to access it.  But it is clearly out there.   D r e a m Focus  21:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you f'n kidding us? You're citing a letter to the editor in the Tribune and a fluff piece in a local paper as evidence that Golden is notable? Who are you, his mother? Rklawton (talk) 21:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, the Tribune ref you cite is a letter to the editor by a reader, not coverage of Les Golden by the Tribune itself. The other ref,, is a local paper for Oak Park and River Forest. Such papers do not have substantial visibility or readership outside these localities. This particular paper evidently has an even bigger conflict-of-interest issue with respect to this subject, as explained in detail above by others. These 2 refs do not go toward notability, in my opinion. Agricola44 (talk) 21:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC).
 * Yeah, that's what I would have said had I not been put off by an editor who didn't spend five seconds on the subject before wasting our time. Rklawton (talk) 21:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey now, Dream is good folks, give him a chance to look further. Les is polluting the voting pool here.--Milowent • hasspoken  21:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 *  D r e a m , i encourage you to look a further into this one. In a general case what you are citing might give pause, but this guy is a piece of work.  Your cite of the Tribune seems to be an honest mistake if its only a letter to the editor.--Milowent • hasspoken  21:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, no need for anyone to get rude now. Firefox 6.0 doesn't load up the "VOICE OF THE PEOPLE (letter)" bit properly, but has it overwriting part of the text, I just seeing a blur and not paying attention towards it. Went back, copied that bit, and pasted it, and found out what it says. Simple mistake. The other coverage he gets in reliable sources, that is hidden behind paywalls, still confers notability.  D r e a m Focus  22:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have access to all the articles under paywall here, and have found none of them to constitute nontrivial coverage of Les Golden. Goodvac (talk) 22:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You have access to all 1,900 results? And have looked through them all?  I find that unlikely.   D r e a m Focus  23:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed I do. I looked at every single page of the results (There are only 10 pages. Even though it lists pages 11–19, they don't exist.) and chose to look at only articles that might have significant coverage. If you want to see the full text for any result, feel free to let me know which one. Goodvac (talk) 23:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The "article" about him gluing himself to the tree is an parody piece, published for the April fools day issue. WikiMrsP (talk) 22:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorting through all the Google news archive results, I found coverage of him here: . Added a section in the article for his political career.   D r e a m Focus  22:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Normal people define "candidate" as someone who appears on a ballot. Les Golden's name did not appear on the ballot in 96 and shouldn't have in 2002, not because of any corrupt machine (David Orr?? Are you kidding me?? That guys' middle name is Good Government), but because Golden himself tried gaming the system (sound familar?) by "ballot sloganneering", which you are not allowed to do. He knew this, but he did it anyway (sound familiar?) and elicited a bunch of lawsuits and wasted a ton of tax payer money. The end result, yes, was legislation specifically prohibiting his behavior. His election runs were publicity stunts designed to get himself attention. He has never been a serious candidate for any office. The fact that he now states his notability is due "nationally, as a political figure" makes me think this whole thing is yet another big joke to Mr. Golden. Maybe he's just trying to get his friends at the Wednesday Journal to write another article about him. WikiMrsP (talk) 23:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

IMHO, we are spending too much time on someone simply attempting self-promotion. The exaggerations found here surpass anything I have yet seen in WP. To wit:
 * He claimed, using a sock-puppet, to be a “newspaper columnist” based on a ref that was to a print pub to which we had no access. Later, someone with access said it was a letter to the editor. I once wrote a letter to the editor of the NYTimes. Does that make me a New York Times columnist?
 * He claimed, using a sock puppet, to be a Republican candidate for the U.S. Congress. But, he wasn’t even on the ballot for the primary, much less the general election. Anyone can register, and be found unqualified.
 * There is a claim that he was involved in suits that changed election law throughout Illinois. Involved has not been established. But, they may have been spurred by a sleazy gimmick that he perpetrated to sneak an electioneering phrase unto a ballot, and the law was changed to prevent anyone else from making the same attempt. Unlike the suggestion that it was a change that he campaigned for.
 * He created two additional self-promotional pages on WP, that were deleted.
 * His claims to academic notability have been dealt with by two editors on this page.
 * Now let me get to his claim to notability as a gambling writer. I will spend more time on this as this is my field. Nine months ago, I participated in an AfD discussion over someone that is a real gambling writer, a byword of gambling writing that, in addition to his own work, has edited the majority of famous Blackjack texts. My !vote was keep, based on references in 38 books, many written by PHDs in related fields. I was told that citations in 38 books was not enough. I was told that I had to actually supply the quotes so that they could be evaluated for actual notability. I gave many important quotes and the page was saved. Now, we have Les Golden claiming that he is a notable gambling writer. Only, he has zero references in books, somewhat less than 38. Not a single citation in a book to examine for notability in the field. Not a single established gambling researcher has cited anything that he has written. The two articles I found were seriously poor, brief, fluff pieces that looked like they were written by staff writers to entice people to gamble in online casinos, with incorrect strategies. And indeed, they were in magazines that made money from online casinos, not scientific texts, and cited by no one.Objective3000 (talk) 00:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm changing my vote from Delete to Delete, salt, and lifetime ban. If we had a hall of shame, I'd nominate him for that if I didn't think it might make him notable. Rklawton (talk) 02:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - Per the sources both available and in the article. See article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 13:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - For those of you in tl;dr mode, here's a potential "notability hook": "His political candidacies for U.S. Congress and State Representative using the nickname “Cut the Taxes” have led to court actions, a re-writing of Illinois election law concerning allowable names on the ballot propagated throughout the state of Illinois..." Of course, that would need to be sourced out. Carrite (talk) 15:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This claim has been sourced out above, but I'll add the link again here for the deer. So it's been established that he's not notable as an academic, a gambling writer, an actor, a politician, or any of his other claims to fame, but now some of you think the fact that he forced the state of illinois to legislate specifically against his pain-in-the-ass election cheating/attention grabs (it was already case law; he just forced them to make it statutory law), fine, let's rewrite the article to reflect this particular claim to fame.  Yes, he has gotten a lot of attention from our local newspapers.  Yes, he's a relentless letter writer. And yes, he is a shameless self-promoter who does not believe laws (election laws, stalking laws, trespassing laws, wiki "laws") apply to him.  He is not notable outside of Oak Park, Illinois, and here he is known primarily as a crackpot.WikiMrsP (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete sources are not independent / detailed / reliable enough to meet notability by WP:GNG. Concerned by the tactics of the canvass squad to save such obviously inappropriate content. 74.198.9.153 (talk) 18:58, 23 October 2011 (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.