Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randall Bell


 * 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. There was really only one Delete comment, not counting the nom. And that comment wasn't very strong, as it stated "no sources proven or found", but there are references to this person. You hate to keep anything that looks like spam, but what can you do? The guy's notable, and the great majority of commenters said so. Non-admin close. Herostratus (talk) 05:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Randall Bell

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

found two SPA linked to this both are inactive since creating this and spamming every thing that links to this. Violates WP:NOR and Fails WP:V and seems to be WP:SPAM Weaponbb7 (talk) 01:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC) — Apst4evr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .
 * Delete, fails to meet notability guidelines. Original research, no sources proven or found. Spamming also seems to be an issue here. A8x   (talk)  01:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, based on WP:AUTHOR policy which negates notability guidelines claim. After performing much research on Randall Bell, I was able to verify all sources and find no validity in original research claim. Randall Bell has authored multiple books and can be found on Google Books. He is also all over Google news in high profile cases. Apst4evr (talk) 00:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This vote seems like a possible COI, the user's only contribution is to this deletion discussion. A8x   (talk)  19:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Added SPA template Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

— Apst4evr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .
 * Keep, There is no COI and let's stick with the facts. I've seen this guy speak and am interested in expanding the article. A Wikipedia article on a person who has been profiled in everything from People to CNN and the Wall Street Journal is certainly worthwhile. If there are spam issues, then fix that, but deleting the article is not a solution. Apst4evr (talk) 18:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've stricken the second boldfaced "Keep" above. Only one boldfaced !vote per customer, please. Deor (talk) 16:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep Do not delete my boss will be very upset! I will be contacting my lawyer to consider my options if this is deleted! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.190.246 (talk) 17:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has specific policy regarding making threats of legal action. I suggest you mark your words more carefully or you editing abilities may be restricted should you make any more comments of this nature. S.G.(GH) ping! 17:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

— 64.134.190.246 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Weak keep -- he does seem to be a go-to guy for the media relating to this subject.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Bell does seem to meet minimum notability guidlines in general, though the lack of in-line citations make a multitude of individual claims difficult to verify, some of which are likely to be challenged. WP:CITE --GabeMc (talk) 19:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep This meets WP:V by a landslide with reputable sources from CBS, Wall Street Journal, New York Times. This needs cleanup not deletion. RJ (talk) 20:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. RJ (talk) 20:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Grudging Keep Linked sources in the article do not prove any of the claims made by the article. It's also clearly being misused to spam Bell's latest book. OTOH, Gnews hits do seem to imply marginal notability in his niche of the real estate market. Edward321 (talk) 01:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * IMHO, articles like this should be deleted until someone without COI spares the time to write them with NPOV Weaponbb7 (talk) 04:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That isn't how Wikipedia operates. Articles are kept if the subject is deemed notable.  The article itself isn't relevant to the AFD discussion.  Use its talk page to discuss how it should be changed.   D r e a m Focus  05:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I know, But i hate it when spammer win, lol Weaponbb7 (talk) 06:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I found this with a brief Google news search. He is considered by a major news organization to be an expert opinion to talk to about things, and they mention his book as well.   D r e a m Focus  02:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "A major news organization" seems an odd way to describe Fox News. -- Hoary (talk) 11:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Fox news has its own long running television channel, and is considered a reliable source on wikipedia.  D r e a m Focus  14:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Question. We are told: He also conducted research at the Chernobyl disaster and Hiroshima, where only the highest governmental clearance allows outside investigators. I wondered what had occurred at Hiroshima whose investigation requires only the highest governmental clearance. Googling for Bell and Hiroshima brings hits such as this one, basically PR fluff for Bell's company, written in a peculiarly soporific PR-speak (By utilizing advanced valuation methodologies, they are able to determine what impact, if any, that [sic] a detrimental condition has on property values etc). Turns out that he means the atomic bomb (1945). What research has Bell done? What "highest governmental clearance" was needed for this? I think even a normally developing four-year-old would be able to view the before-and-after photos of Hiroshima that have been openly available for sixty or more years, to delete "if any", and to say that the impact was the cost of the structure. Am I missing something big here (I plead guilty to lack of an MBA), or is it just possible that this is just codswallop? And if this is codswallop, what else in the article is codwallop too? -- Hoary (talk) 11:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Most of the article does appear to be codswallop and the sources certainly do not support most of the article. OTOH, enough independent sources exist that I think a decent article could be written. Edward321 (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep (Strong Keep), The original complaint about the article was that it 'fails to meet notability guidelines' and 'NO Sources proven or found'. Those statements are both unfair and not true.  First of all, Bell unquestionably meets the Notability guidelines. There are hundreds of independent references about him on the web - in addition to the dozen or more books that he has written.  He is the world's expert on Damaged Real Estate. If that doesn't qualify as being notable, I don't know what does.  Secondly, the comment about NO sources is not true.  The article provides 2 references at the bottom for a video of an interview on CBS News in LA and an article from the New York Times.  If one took the time to read this article, they would have read these outside references for notability.  How much more independent can you be than CBS News and the NY Times?!

Wikipedia's own policy is Don't Throw the Baby out with the Bathwater. The article certainly passes the 'smell test' for value. And if there is more than an ounce of value, then Keep - not Delete.

Wikipedia's Deletion policy is: Only Delete as a LAST resort. The original author/editor of the article was never given a chance to fix the problems (Validation, etc) which should have been tagged in the article, as a start to fixing the problems. But instead, the very FIRST recommendation was to immediately delete the article.

Also, Wikipedia's policy is Don't Bite the Newcomers. The articles author was noted as an SPA and has been inactive for a year. That doesn't automatically make the article less valuable or spam. Cut the person a little slack, until they have time to weigh in on the discussion. You don't know why the account has been inactive... Perhaps a man lost his job in the bad economy and is now working two jobs, or a women could have had a new baby, which takes priority over editing Wikipedia, or the person may have a serious illness. The editor (and/or others) needs to do some work to add references and validate some of the statements - but don't shoot down a Newbie - per Wikipedia; It is impossible for a newcomer to be completely familiar with all of the policies, guidelines, and community standards of Wikipedia before they start editing.

Lastly, after only 15 to 20 minutes of researching Bell on Google, I found the following sources, which is just the tip of the iceberg. Some of these sources Validate the Books and References used in the article:

INDEPENDENT SOURCES


 * ABC News - Dr. Disaster: Appraises Properties Where Chilling Crimes Occurred

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Housing/story?id=1928757&page=1


 * People Magazine - Ghost Buster: Had a Murder on Your Property?

http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20123639,00.html


 * USA Today - For Sale: Scene of a crime.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-08-06-murder-houses_x.htm


 * Post-Gazette - Reprint from the Wall Street Journal

The Scandal Effect: How tabloids can hurt real estate prices.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06217/711185-30.stm


 * Appraisal Institute - Podcast - Online interview with Randall Bell

Real Estate Damage book - 2nd Ed.

http://www.appraisalinstitute.org/appraisercast/apprcast20080930_episode7.mp3


 * MarketWatch.com - Homes With a Haunting Past Don't Scare Away Every Buyer.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/homes-with-a-haunting-past-dont-scare-away-every-buyer


 * VerdictSearch - Court Cases - Expert Witnesses - Randall Bell

http://www.verdictsearch.com/jv3_verdictsearch/ew_full_results2.jsp?referer=ew&expertLastName=Bell&expertFirstName=Randall&stateRegion=CA


 * AppraisalBuzz.com - Webinar: Gulf Oil Collateral Damage - Presenter: Randall Bell

http://www.appraisalbuzz.com/ce/Gulf_Oil_Collateral_Damage_Webinar.shtml

BOOKS / ARTICLES


 * Disasters: Wasted Lives, Valuable Lessons

http://books.google.com/books?id=GjZdAAAACAAJ&dq=Disasters:+Wasted+Lives,+Valuable+Lessons&hl=en&ei=l2pLTM-1HZDQsAPZoqT7CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-thumbnail&resnum=1&ved=0CCcQ6wEwAA


 * The Impact of Detrimental Conditions on Property Values by Randall Bell, MAI,

The Appraisal Journal (October 1998) pg. 111,

http://www.appraisalinstitute.org/store/images/document/TOC/0689M_toc.pdf


 * The Analysis of Environmental Case Studies by Thomas O. Jackson, PhD, MAI, and Randall Bell, MAI

The Appraisal Journal (January 2002) pg. 274

http://www.appraisalinstitute.org/store/images/document/TOC/0689M_toc.pdf


 * Class VIII—Environmental Conditions by Randall Bell, MAI

Chapter 8 in Real Estate Damages: An Analysis of Detrimental Conditions (Appraisal Institute: 1999), pg 169

http://www.appraisalinstitute.org/store/images/document/TOC/0689M_toc.pdf

REFERENCES


 * Environmental science and technology: a sustainable approach to green ... By Stanley E. Manahan p. 280

http://books.google.com/books?id=PgLiYvgpzeYC&lpg=PA280&dq=Disasters%3A%20Wasted%20Lives%2C%20Valuable%20Lessons&pg=PA280#v=onepage&q=Disasters:%20Wasted%20Lives,%20Valuable%20Lessons&f=false

PS - I am a long time Wikipedia fan, and I am new WP User/Editor, however I am NOT a Sock Puppet! I recently finished reading one of Bell's books and I was curious to see what information there was about him on Wikipedia. I was honestly shocked to see it was tagged for Deletion. This appeared to be a drive-by-deletion. With all of the information available on the Web about Bell, he more than qualifies for an article. Please reconsider the request for deletion and allow the inefficiencies in the article to be fixed. No articles are perfect the first time around. BizMan95 (talk) 21:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC) — BizMan95 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment The "Independant Sources" you list are trivial mentions, not counting the link that doesn't mention him at all. The books and articles are by Bell himself. And are you saying that only one independent book uses any of Bell's work as a reference? Edward321 (talk) 22:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Umm, don't think an ABC News story devoted to the guy is a "trivial mention". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep very important person the weaponbb7 should be blocked for suggesting it be deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.159.71 (talk) 16:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC) — 64.134.159.71 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep Seems to have enough sources to indicate WP:N, but with a definite COI issue it needs approprately tagged and gone though with a fine-tooth comb to make sure it's WP:NPOV and not a puff piece. — raeky  T  21:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Users are not going to get blocked because they offend you. This is Wikipedia. You're bound to come across someone who grinds your gears once a quarter, if not more often. —Jeremy (v^_^v Carl Johnson) 00:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I have added two inline citations from reliable sources that each provide more than passing coverage about the topic of the article (LA Times and a Herald-Journal article both about the author). There appear to be many more that could be added by someone who has access to the news archive databases. Active Banana (talk) 03:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I also added content from a number of sources that have passing content about Bell. Active Banana (talk) 05:02, 29 July 2010 (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.