Revision 77879202 of "Talk:James Dicks" on enwiki

{{Oldafdfull|date=June 19, 2006|result='''Keep'''|votepage=James Dicks}}

This is the same info, I've put into the self-promoting [[forex teachers]] article.
I believe it should be put here and that that article should be deleted.

[[User:Smallbones|Smallbones]] 17:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

:The only problem I see with that is that it would leave [[forex teachers]] as a redirect to here, which is a bit extravagant. --[[User:GraemeL|GraemeL]] [[User_talk:GraemeL|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 19:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

::The alternative is to list forex teachers on AfD and wait a week for it to be deleted.  Redirects are cheap and I don't think this one would be too confusing.  [[User:Eluchil404|Eluchil404]] 11:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

== Let's not get carried away ==

Let's not get carried away folks - certainly if he has business acomplishments they should be put in - but business club breakfast awards??!  Also the documented problems with his business must also be included.  Wikipedia is not a place for self-promotion and self-advertisements.  [[User:Smallbones|Smallbones]] 11:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
::ditto for the $1000 (total) mud volleyball tournament and the toys-for-tots contribution.[[User:Smallbones|Smallbones]]

Quoting individuals who have a beef with him or his company are facts?  If this is going to be put in then James should be able to respond with quotes of his own, which then makes it self promoting and a discussion forum, not a fact based page.  And the fraud category is a personal opinion, again not fact.

:Correction - the article quotes multiple reliable sources (Fox TV in Denver, MarketWatch, the Houston Press).  The article is factual in that it is fact that these sources published the quoted statements.  The reader can judge for himself whether he believes the sources.  This level of reliability is required by Wikipedia rules.  Please note that most of the accomplishments section does not meet these standards for reliability!  (even the mud volleyball stuff).  I don't know about the rule for applying categories, but I'd imagine that applying any categorization involves some interpretation of the facts as presented.  Since a bit of interpretation is necessary, I don't think that you can complain about this unless you want to outlaw categorization altogether.  [[User:Smallbones|Smallbones]] 13:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


The information provided in this wiki is walking a fine line between opinion and fact.  Finding opinion based articles from newspapers and using only good or bad ones is unfair and will lead to opinion based wikis.  The article should be deleted completely.

:Please do not just keep on blanking out the documented facts that you don't like.  If you want you can list the article for deletion, but this has been done before and failed (see the tags at the top for how to do this).  You might want to look up the policy on biographies of Living Persons.  This might be an interesting test case on how much can be said about a living person when multiple reliable sources say some pretty nasty things about him and his business practices.

:On the other hand, just listing advertising puffery and self-promotion are definitely not allowed.  [[User:Smallbones|Smallbones]] 10:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)