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 Keep. utcursch | talk 08:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Prechter[edit]

Robert Prechter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Prodded by User:72.75.93.131. I think it deserves an AFD. PROD Reason: This article is being used as a soapbox for the subject and their self-published books (New Classics Library) and newletter (Elliott Wave Theorist). Most of the "citations" are links to the subject's publications. This article has become a magnet for both fans and critics of the subject engaged in revert edit wars that attempt to obfuscate the affiliation between the subject and the source of the citations. There is no credible, third-party verification of the subject's notability. See the discussion page.

Also: These "articles" are only excuses to have external links to the subjects' wesbsites, some of which (a) point to stale sites ("bandwidth exceeded"), (b) have "sessionid" fields, so they just go to a default page, or (c) force a streaming video download (in Urdu, with English subtitles, no less!) None of the three meet WP:BIO, IMHO, and the articles should be salted after deletion.

Neutral. utcursch | talk 12:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to say that I'm one of the people considered to be edit-warring on this page, but I don't think that is just in that I've always attempted to add things and not delete.

It is difficult to say that Prechter is not notable, since he has had an article dedicated to him on the front page of the Wall Street Journal, and all the following make significant reference to him (I can add several articles from the Financial Times as well - he is also notable in Europe)

^ ”The Wheelers, the Wavers, and the Star-Struck” by Colvin, Geoffrey, Fortune; 10/16/2000, Vol. 142 Issue 9, p84-84, 1p, 2c

^ "Robert Prechter sees his 3600 on the Dow--But 6 years late" by Power, William, The Wall Street Journal, Aug 19, 1993

^ “Lost Sheep Investors Find New Bo-peeps” by Kevin G. Salwen, The Wall Street Journal, July 28, 1989

^ “Bears Will Be Right On Stocks Someday, Just You Watch --- So They Missed 5,000 Points, It's No Reason They Ought To Stop Prognosticating” by Robert McGough, The Wall Street Journal, July 17, 1997

^ ”Game Over” by Kurson, Ken, Esquire; Feb99, Vol. 131 Issue 2, p44, 4p

^ ”Advisory Newsletters Don't Seem to Be Providing Quality Assistance Traders Seek from Them” by Angrist, Stanley W, The Wall Street Journal, Feb 5, 1990

^ “Doomsayers Now Are Salient Among Market Bears” by Constance Mitchell, The Wall Street Journal, Dec 27, 1988

^ 'Elliott Wave' Forecaster Ends Public Appearances, The Wall Street Journal, March 10, 1989

^ “Lend Half an Ear to This Doomsayer” by Barker, Robert, Business Week; 7/22/2002 Issue 3792, p90-90, 1p, 2c

The trouble with this article is that Rgfolsom (Robert Folsom), who confirms that he works for Prechter, refuses to let this material into the article. I don't know how to make Folsom not revert this material - perhaps it is impossible. But I think that the article should be kept, if material from reputable publications is allowed. Of course if only material straight from Prechter is allowed, then the article should be deleted.

qualified keep Smallbones 14:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brief response to 72.75.93.131 below moved to TALK page
Moved comment from Punanimal to TALK page Smallbones 18:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prechter has authored or edited 14 books, including Conquer the Crash, a New York Times bestseller.[1] He has also published monthly financial commentary in the Elliott Wave Theorist since 1979.[2] In recent years Prechter has supported the study of socionomics, a theory about the dynamics of human social behavior. [3]

[1] is a blocked website (you have to register to read the review) ... BTW, is having one of his 14 books on the list for only one week sufficient for WP:BIO?
[2] is a reference to his self-published monthly newsletter, Elliott Wave Theorist - hardly a 3rd party claim of notability; it's just support for the assertion that he's been writing his own tip-sheet for almost 30 years.
[3] is a reference to his book, published by his own company, New Classics Library - again, very WP:COI.
If someone should include Real Citations (with ISBNs) for that list of books he has authored, we'd see that they are self-published as well ... I could write a dozen books and start my own company to publish them ... does that mean that if I can get a periodical with a Wikipedia article to write a review of one of them, then I can have a biographical article, too?
So far, the only 3rd party references for him (including those mentioned above by Smallbones) appear to demonstrate that his noteriety (not the same thing as notability) stems from his failures as a stock prognosticator. Other than that, he's not very remarkable. —72.75.93.131 (talk · contribs) 17:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My apologies — only 9 of those 14 books are published by his company, New Classics Library ... I should have said "they are mostly self-published." ;-) —72.75.93.131 (talk · contribs) 21:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I'll be the first editor who actually bothers to quote the Wikipedia:Notability (people) guidelines. That article says, "People who satisfy at least one of the items below may merit their own Wikipedia articles," and I will show that Prechter is a public figure who meets several of the "items" in the guidelines.

  1. Prechter was the primary subject of "Business books take a bearish turn," a USA Today article on Aug 23, 2002, p. B3. Since 1987, Prechter has been mentioned by name 71 times in USA Today.
  2. Prechter was the primary subject of "2 Theorists Split On Elliott Wave," a New York Times article on Feb. 6, 1989, p. D6. Since 1981, Prechter has been mentioned by name 25 times in the New York Times.
  3. Prechter was the primary subject of "3600 on the Dow?," a Barron's front page article on Jan. 5, 1987. Since 1996, Prechter has been mentioned by name 34 times in Barron's/The Wall Street Journal.
  4. Prechter was the primary subject of "Storm Warning! How Social Mood Drives Markets," a Futures magazine cover article, Nov. 2004.
  5. Prechter was the primary subject of "Why Bears Growl," a Kiplinger Personal Finance article, October 2005, p. 46.
  6. Prechter was the primary subject of "Bob Prechter Interview," The Technical Analyst cover article, July/August 2006 issue.

Contrary to the false claim that Prechter's books are all self-published, Elliott Wave Principle, At the Crest of the Tidal Wave, and Conquer the Crash were published by John Wiley & Sons, a large and reputable publishing house. Click on the links, the reviews are quoted on the Wiley pages.

Challenging the bestseller status of Conquer the Crash is silly. I'll remove the link that requires a subscription, but I also provided the page number in the citation for the NYT Book Review, which is for the actual list of best sellers with Conquer the Crash listed. It wasn't just on the best sellers lists for one week, either -- it was on the Wall Street Journal's bestseller list for 2 1/2 months, 12 July 2002 through 27 Sept. 2002. (Look it up online if you're a WSJ subscriber, otherwise you can hoof it the nearest library if you're motivated enough to check my facts.)

Prechter was also published in a scholarly journal, "Unconscious herding behavior as the psychological basis of financial market trends and patterns." Journal of Behavioral Finance, 2 (3), 2001, pp. 120-125.

A Google search for "Robert Prechter" brings more than 60,000 results -- and those EXCLUDE results from elliottwave.com, socionomics.net, and socionomics.org. What's more, some 28,000 of the Google search results are non-English language, so Prechter has wide international notability.

Finally, for the record, my edits to Prechter's bio have NOT included ANY links to Prechter's products or commercial web site. This claim is rubbish, as anyone who checks the list of my contributions will plainly see.

This AFD is unnecessary and a waste of time. Prechter clearly meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. Before this AFD, I had politely said I was willing to find and include additional third-party sources for the Prechter bio. Editor 72.75.93.131 replied with rude sarcasm to my offer. This didn't have to happen. Rgfolsom 19:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Yes, we've read that Guideline (not an Official Policy), and please note:

"People who satisfy at least one of the items below may merit their own Wikipedia articles"

I believe that the operative word is may, as in, "this is is not a guarantee, your results may vary, only one might not be enough" ... And please if your comment fills more than a screen of text, then put it on the Talk page and say, "See "such-and-such" section on the Talk page." —72.75.93.131 (talk · contribs) 22:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You instigated an AFD on notability that has been steamrolled by the weight of the facts in every relevant Wikipedia criterion, including a few I didn’t even address -- such as the “widely recognized” and “professor” tests. You also made demonstrably phony claims about me using the article as a soapbox.

Yet in the face of this… you patronize me about Guidelines vs. Policy, the meaning of “may,” and where else to put all the evidence I offer? Oh my.

Oh, my. Rgfolsom 04:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The guy's marketing hype works overboard and lures in suckers by the day. He was ONCE good, in the 1980's when the waves were "easier" to read. Not any more. But the hype keeps luring suckers in. Despite having admitted that he's called 1998 to 2006 completely wrong (recent Elliott Wave Threorist said this period "has not been tradable using my tools"), the marketing machine works overboard.
The Traders Big 5 Flash service has produced such atrocious results that EWI hid them once people realised they were listed on their website. And they neglect to mention that this service has turned over 4 analysts in a year. But the marketing hyperbole continues: Whichever category you belong to, you probably don't have time to scan the markets for high-probability trading opportunities all day long, day after day, all through the year. That's what Flash does for you. In my opinion, even George Orwell would find such bending of the truth stranger than fiction.
Personally, I think the WP article, with it's fair criticism section, does a public service. There are few places on the internet where the other view can be heard. If Prechter's analysis was any good, the results should speak for themselves. Don't take my word for it, ask EWI for some statistics to prove the results that are achieved. They will probably decline and point to a trading contest win ... from nearly 25 years ago. Therefore KEEP. Punanimal 18:15, 30th November 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me ... what part of "neutral point of view" do you not understand? Any criticism, fair or unfair, has not place in a Wikipedia article ... Wikipedia is not a place "where the other view can be heard" ... that's the short definition of a "soapbox", BTW. —72.75.93.131 (talk · contribs) 21:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I am asking that you promptly remove the Robert Prechter biography as an article for deletion. The editor who requested the AFD spurned my prior good-faith attempt to resolve the primary sources issue. This editor also made false claims about "links to the subject's publications," plus other reckless accusations; and, given what we can all read here, there is strong reason to believe that this AFD process should not have happened at all.
Even so, I have since added reputable third-party citations to the Prechter bio. In this AFD discussion I've shown that Prechter surpasses the standards explained in Wikipedia:Notability (people), and the evidence I've presented on this page has not been challenged; it's also self-evident that the opinions expressed to "keep" the article already go beyond the rough consensus standard. Thank you. Rgfolsom 16:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
More