Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Dicks/2006-06-19

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 of the debate was Keep Eluchil404 05:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James Dicks

Makes no claims to notability. Seems to be nothing more than spam.-- GraemeL ^(talk) 21:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Makes a very minor claim to limited notability, just enough to make me uncomfortable to CSD-A7 it. But the article as it stands is little more than advertising and I think that the notability probably isn't high enough for Wikipedia generally (aside from CSD requirements). ➨ ЯЄDVERS 22:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur. This is nothing more than an advert for 4xMadeEasy which in many people's minds is a scam. Check this reference. http://www.fox31news.com/_ezpost/data/6465.shtml. Ezgoing85018

• Keep The main point of the article is now that Dicks is a scam artist. It cites multiple news links in support. As such, it's not only notable, but commendable -- I hope somebody considering investing with this guy finds the WP article first. NawlinWiki 17:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep (qualified) I did a little research, updated the article, and say the guy is marginally notable - as a huckster. Either this article or the very similar forex teachers article should be deleted. I say keep this one, since there is actual sourced info on the guy. The forex teachers article, however, is misleading in its title and includes the names of others, who might feel themselves smeared by association.

(I've been out of town, sorry I didn't do the research earlier) (edit conflict with the above comment)

Smallbones 17:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Submitter. Changing my opinion to weak keep. Marginally notable and now at least properly sourced. The only source when I submitted the request was his own web site. --GraemeL ^(talk) 17:47, 25 June 2006 (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.