Jump to content

Talk:John T. Reed

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Not Dilbert (talk | contribs) at 23:36, 14 March 2007 (→‎Revert of not dilbert's changes). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Notability

Here's a ref I found:

Who is this??? He's nobody. Doesnt below in wikipedia

Who is this guy??? Its just a guy with a website trying to get traffic to his site. Doesnt belong in wikipedia Jscottccre 20:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not tag articles for speedy deletion if they meet Wikipedia's Notability Guideline. I started to tag the John T. Reed article myself and did a quick Google search. The fact is, there are press articles to document his notability, so the article stays, like it or not. Those references are at the bottom of the article page. --A. B. (talk) 22:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete Notable and a reasonable critic of Real Estate Guru's

John T Reed - if you read the linked references - is apparently a notable entry - being referenced in neurtral main stream media at least 3 times as well as googling well.

His inclusion balances the inclusion of notable and somewhat shady Real Estate Guru's such as Robert Kiyosaki and Dolf de Roos.

I don't think he's a "nobody" and deserves a NPOV entry.

--PeterMarkSmith 08:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, do not keep tagging this article for speedy deletion

I see Jscottccre tagged the John T. Reed article for speedy deletion a second time.

I think we should all take a look at the following Wikipedia rules:
1. The Notability Guideline for People, in particular:

  • "Please see criteria for speedy deletion for policy on speedy deletion. The fact that an article doesn't meet guidelines on this page, does not necessarily mean it qualifies for speedy deletion, as a mere claim of notability (even if contested) may avoid deletion under criterion A7 (Unremarkable people or groups). However, an AfD nomination may result in deletion, on consensus, after a 5 day debate."
"In general, an article's text should include enough information to explain why the person is notable, and such information should be verifiable."'
  • "Notability on Wikipedia for people is based on the following criterion:"
    • "The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person."
      • "This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, scholarly papers, and television documentaries except for the following:"
        • "Works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that just mention the person in passing, telephone directory listings, or simple records of births and deaths."

2. The Speedy Deletion Policy
3. The guideline, "Do Not Disrupt Wikipedia to Illustrate a Point"

I've initiated a discussion on the Administrators' Noticeboard for Incidents asking for assistance.

Thanks, --A. B. (talk) 13:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably deserves an expanded biography, but I'm too busy to do it. Not Dilbert 22:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

The article is curiously coy about his publications; a few of them are mentioned without publishing details or sources in the text, and that's it. As they're the only thing that would allow this person to pass the notability test, could sources and details be given? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His publications are all available for order through his website. Not Dilbert 21:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the point; the article ought to list them properly, and give publishing details. Are they self-published, for example? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 10:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revert of not dilbert's changes

Just want to note that I backed out not dilberts changes which to my mind were questionable. I think we need citations for the court case, and the removal of the fact template should be when a citation is given. For the book's able to be bought on web site, that seems like promotion. WilliamKF 21:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree the book bit is promotion but the court case is mentioned in a cited article noted at the bottom.

--PeterMarkSmith 01:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The citation needs to be given properly, as it's been questioned. Tell us which article, and make it a proper reference.
  2. Why did you remove the {{fact}}? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 10:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read the East Bay article, which is cited, for details of the litigation. If you have Pacer, the case was in the US District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Use the query function to pull up the entire case file in the case. It is a subscription service, however. The "fact" was removed because if you look at Reed's website, you will see he is the author of those books. Not Dilbert 23:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_T._Reed&oldid=115191094"