Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Keiser

Max Keiser

Max Keiser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Not notable. Subject is founder of Hollywood Stock Market, which is notable, but Keiser himself has received insufficient independent media coverage under BLP. Article reads like a fan site, and a large amount of it is devoted to non-notable Karmabanque website.--Mantanmoreland 18:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator, insufficient resources to meet WP:BLP policy, and article is nothing more than a list of quotes anyhow. Burntsauce 18:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Burntsauce. Notability not established by reliable independent third-party sources. The Parsnip! 18:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge the relevant info and redirect to the Hollywood Stock Exchange article, which isn't even linked from this one for some reason. Propaniac 19:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete/Merge Not notable enough. Corpx 19:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - seems notable enough to keep, but what the heck do I know :) --Tom 18:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - meets all guidelines, including BLP. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - I added some, not all, of the material on the Max Keiser entry and there was at one point an explanation of the significance of the underlying patent on HSX. It was however deleted. The three underlying patents which are still linked to in the article, I believe, are the only patents for prediction markets and virtual currencies. The virtual specialist technology he invented is a mechanism for creating a price for previously unpriceable things like fame, popularity, ideas, time spent online, etc. Prediction markets were called the biggest financial and market trend for the future by the Economist Magazine (December 2005). So, his virtual specialist technology is notable to economics and finance even if the average person doesn't understand the notability. The debate held between Keiser and the Hollywood studios in the public during 1999 when Keiser said studios were going to have to compete with a 'price point called free' was revolutionary at the time. From the Hollywood industry trade magazines linked to in the article, it is clear to see that no other person had suggested this publicly at that time and it was considered heretical as the articles make clear. In terms of Karmabanque not being relevant, Cheuvreux, a major European bank, only just came out with a report this month, June 2007, called "Consumer Power: Pricing Power versus Consumer Power" and the report specifically cites Max Keiser alone as having innovated a powerful market solution to the demand side of the consumer / corporation equation with Karmabanque. And Newsweek Japan is profiling Max Keiser and Karmabanque for the final issue of June 2007. The Karmabanque Hedge fund concept is the first ever mechanism for monetizing dissent in a day and age of anti-globalisation protests where hundreds of thousands protest G8 like events. Karmabanque has been profiled in the Washington Post, Dow Jones Marketwatch, Atlanta Journal Constitution and dozens of other important financial trade magazine and has been included in the curriculum at universities (Robert W. Benson, Loyola Law School) as well as legal opinions issued by the Washington Legal Foundation. So, while it may not be easy for the the average person to understand the significance at this moment in time, it is notable in financial, market, banking and academic sectors - all of which also use Wikipedia. And, finally, Max Keiser is an American presenter for Aljazeera English. He has made six films for them and most of the films are linked to in the article. Aljazeera English is a notable international broadcaster with significance at this moment in history. (diff)

•  Note: The above comment comes from an IP address that has no editing history prior to the above comment.--Mantanmoreland 18:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Addendum - Sorry no I am not Max Keiser. I didn't have an account now I do. (diff)

• Neutral - Suggestions to both sides of this debate------A) To the anonymous IP above posting from Paris, France, where Keiser has lived and might be now, you might want to ensure that you can let wikipedia know that you are not Keiser himself, although vanity bios are not forbidden (an issue which is ironic on this page), or a significant other. You are not editing per BLP guidelines, so the deletion nominator has a point. Make an effort to show sources for ALL of your edits. The sources are there and extensive----B) To the deletion side: It appears you did not give an active editor a chance to more further source the material after some sourcing was done after this nomination was opened. It appears that eagerness to delete the BLP without giving the editor(s) more time to source the statements might have been affected by the fact that Keiser is working for Al Jazeera, and also reporting on controversial stock market issues, both of the preceding two issues that the nominator's edit history shows to be on the extreme opposite sides of in articles edited here. Piperdown 11:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Hi, my name is Chris Masse, the editor of Midas Oracle, a group blog on prediction markets ( http://www.midasoracle.org/ ). In my judgment, the "Max Keiser" entry on Wikipedia is useful because it gives additional information about the first version of the Holllywood Stock Exchange, which seems to be a more ambitious endeavor that what we have right now. And as you all know, the Hollywood Stock Exchange is the world's most popular play-money prediction exchange. Economists who have been studying both real-money and play-money prediction markets say that their their relative accuracy is socially valuable. See the works from Robin Hanson, Justin Wolfers, Eric Zitzewitz, Koleman Strumpf, Paul Tetlock, and others. So for all these reasons, I vote to KEEP the "Max Keiser" entry. (diff) (diff) — AND (diff)

•  Note: The above comment was left by an IP address and it he/she seems to have a conflict of interest, I suggest you read WP:USEFUL and WP:ILIKEIT. All the best. The Sunshine Man 17:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• the "Max Keiser" entry on Wikipedia is useful because it gives additional information about the first version of the Holllywood Stock Exchange, which seems to be a more ambitious endeavor that what we have right now. Shouldn't that information go in a Hollywood Stock Exchange article then? Morgan Wick 19:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Addendum - [Corrected to take into account the remark made by the next commenter.] - Hi, this is Chris Masse again. Now I'm logged in so I should appear under my name here. For your information, I have written a blog post about this discussion: http://www.midasoracle.org/2007/06/22/the-hollywood-stock-exchange-max-keiser-and-their-wikipedia-entries/ Thanks. (diff) — AND (diff)

• Excuse me, but shouldn't there be only one "keep"? You appear to have "voted" (quote unquote) twice, once logged in and once not. I assume this is inadvertent. --Mantanmoreland 18:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Thank you for fixing your "vote" but I was hoping that you might also revert the links to your site too. They are not appropriate.--Mantanmoreland 21:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge relevant info, redirect to Hollywood Stock Exchange. — Athaenara ✉ 04:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: six edits by four SPAs are from two users at most (perhaps only one):

• 82.123.21.165  is  Predictablefrog.
• 86.202.162.123  is  Chris. F. Masse.

• (I {{spa}}-tagged their posts.) — Athaenara ✉ 04:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• comment - subj is an active correspondant for Al Jazeera English. In considering notability, wikiepedia BLPs are replete with brief stubs of reporters for various news networks, a good portion of which are of debatable notability as people, but have their own very brief articles due to their positions. As this wikipedia by nature is British/American by location, language, majority of users, caution should taken in neutrally considering reporters from Western hemisphere networks vs networks that have in the past evoked widespread hatred against it, whether justified or not. Piperdown 16:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop disparaging the motives of editors favoring deletion of this article. That is now the second time you have done this. Your innuendo and attacks are tiresome.--Mantanmoreland 19:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)