Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Cortson

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 delete. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Cortson

Michael Cortson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Sorry, not being snide, but Pancreatic Cancer is the most fatal of all diseases and for this person to claim a self-cure while looking to sell motivational books strikes me as potentially fraudulent and unfair to people who may be suffering from terminal illnesses. When I read his account of writing 38 books and numerous screenplays in a 6 month period, I am moved beyond incredulity - recommend delete on the basis of notability Brunonia 22:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, but your comment was very snide and it makes me wonder if you really have concern for pancreatic patients, or you want to use that platform to defend your rude behavior. There's no excuse for rudeness. I appreciate your concern for the people who have pancreatic cancer and see why you think they should not be given a possible false hope. I never gave that impression in this article. I am innocent of that accusation. I never said he had pancreatic cancer. I never said he had four holes-in-one. I have never written anything like that. I see no reason why it should be removed.LaurieFoston 06:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as there don't seem to be any independent sources to indicate he's any more important than any other motivational speaker - but I don't see why there's such an edit war going on about his cancer claims - whether or not it's true is beside the point - all that the quote in question says is that he claims to have made a full recovery. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 13:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I agree, it doesn't matter if he has cancer or not. What matters is that statements like this: "He was a past PGA Tour Golf manager and wrote books on Ben Hogan's secret swing and may very well be considered by some to be one of the world's foremost authorities on golf instruction" cannot be verified by anyone. Who considers him to be the foremost authority? There are not any sources listed that verify any of the information in the article. Until sources are produced, this article has nothing to stand on, cancer or not.--Cyrus Andiron 14:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No evidence he passes WP:BIO. Edison 14:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

There are people who believe in Mike Cortson. A lot of them. There are people who believed in Oral Roberts. How credible is the source that says the people were healed when Oral Roberts laid hands on them? All of your listed authors have links to their web sites. No one deleted them yet. I could improve the article by removing the hype that he "may well be considered by some as one of the world's foremost authorities on golf" I like that suggestion, thank you.

So, the people who have had pancreatic cancer, who also read Mike's books and were given hope, should now have a rug jerked out from under them by Wikipedia debating his credibility. (Lead us not into false hope--Oral Roberts or Mike Cortson) Imagine what a shock if they somehow came across this posting? Be careful of accusing people of being fraudulent. It could result in a lawsuit. The man used to be a lawyer. I highly recommend that we let this thing go. It's positive thinking... I'm all for it and I've got better things to do. It's all to motivate otherwise hopeless, helpless individuals. I heard his radio shows...I am convinced he is a sincere person. He's an author. Disprove it!

If that article is removed from Wikipedia, then there are thousands more that need to go. This is really turning into a witch hunt. I'm reading, learning and understanding and so you are going to have to bear with me, and others like me, or lock out only people who have a proven track record for telling only the facts.LaurieFoston 23:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You come up with these sources that prove your claims to be true, it's likely that we'll reconsider our stance. As for now, there is no proof, and we are closing shop. Oral Roberts has other sources than just himself (magazines like TIME and other stuff have reported on him). Stop characterizing this as a "witch hunt" - nobody is out to personally get this man. If the Oral Roberts article didn't have a single external source, we'd delete it in a heartbeat. hbdragon88 23:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The source of the comment in question came from a pdf file (which is what publishers use to publish) called, "My Various Quotes Along The Way". There is nothing there, or in what I wrote that said he had pancreatic cancer or that he healed himself. I am not surprised at someone who could have written 38 books in such a short time either. The books don't have to be novels to be considered books, you know. Books can be only a few pages. I wrote a children's story in 30 minutes that was published in 1998. Surely you don't have the mindset that the 38 books would all be 120,000 word novels? Books like that one in particular may take only 30 minutes for some...30 years for others. But as for your comment about the four holes-in-one...you must have been looking at another page. I never made any such claim. LaurieFoston 00:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

This self-published account is what I was referring to [1] with the cancer claims. Brunonia 03:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

hbdragon88 or Brunonia, (I don't know which to call you since I address one of you and the other replies)Do you officially challenge this man to be a fraud? If he was a lawyer, he knows what he can say on the Internet that fits the truth within the framework of this country's laws. I can see he is an author, public speaker and motivator. These claims call for some recognition on Wikipedia as you do for other authors. You should've been diplomatic enough to say it from the start if that's not the case. Instead, he could view this debate as humiliation in a public forum.LaurieFoston 05:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Most of the books on his list are children's stories. Some of them are available if you want to buy them. I did not list them before because that would have been advertising and it would have started a round of deletion notices etc. unless it came from someone like Stephen King. You will not understand how fast these can be written if you're not an author. You need to look before you leap in the future.[2].LaurieFoston 12:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

If you want to see the pdf files on the non-published works you may find that to be something he will not allow to post on this debate. The screenplays are listed there. I just received a jpeg of a medical bill from him. Do you have any idea how degrading this is? Did you ask Esther Hicks all of this? She must have proven that she was able to contact the dead.

How do you want that medical bill presented? I have a pdf file on one of the screen plays on my computer. I believe you can see from his library that there are books listed there. I don't think it is any of your business what the play is until you pay money to read it. This was available through the link that I attached to the article to begin with.

Dr. Cortson never asked me to do this. I thought he deserved it and so does a lot of people.LaurieFoston 14:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - this discussion seems to be getting way too heated over a technical point, and Brunonia, IMO while you're right to say it should be deleted in it's current form, you're arguing for a reason that is clearly wrong. As I've already said above, if he's claiming to have recovered whether or not it's true than the article is perfectly entitled to say that he claims it. (David Icke claims to have proof that Kris Kristofferson is actually a giant lizard. Just because the article discusses his claims doesn't mean they are - or aren't - true.) LaurieFoston, I've left a more detailed (and hopefully more cool-headed) discussion of what is wrong with the current article and how to put it right on my talk page. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment rofl, where did I ever say he was a fraud? Nowhere, that's where. Brunonia is leading the charge and doubting his claims. Nobody here has accused you of doing this for Mr. Cortson. What the hell does Esther Hicks have anything to do with this? She has never claimed to have a self-cure for cancer. We're not here whethe to decide if the claims here are true or false; we only report on what others have already reported. Hicks might be totally wrong but we're not here to judge that. This article is expected to follow the same standard. hbdragon88 23:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

After reading the overview and pages more of the same that everyone else had to read, I believe my best plan would be to do nothing about this today or tomorrow. I'll start by watching, continuing to read and learn.LaurieFoston 08:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Semi-famous and important author and radio show host for which there is not enough WP:RS material to write an attributable article on the topic. Thus, the topic does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines and cannot meet Wikipedia article policy standards. -- Jreferee 22:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I could not find any independent sources to verify notability. Subject's top-ranked book on Amazon was a decidedly non-notable #996,849. Caknuck 00:43, 25 April 2007 (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.