Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randall Bell (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. After discounting the opinions by accounts who are not established editors (see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sahar27), there is a clear consensus that this is a non-notable subject and that the article is written in a promotional manner. As provided for in WP:NACD, this closure undoes a previous, mistaken "keep" closure by a non-administrator, as discussed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 September 30.  Sandstein  09:38, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Randall Bell

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Randall Bell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is really fishy, I don't know how it survived the first AfD. Basically it is the epitome of what we call WP:SOAPBOX. The biography does not indicate any notability, especially from a science/research standpoint. What adds insult to injury is the fact that its "main creators"—namely Bcar92 (talk · contribs), Dianearmitage (talk · contribs), Youknow009 (talk · contribs), and Sahar27 (talk · contribs)—also spammed (yes, I mean it!) a lot of other articles (as evident here or here) which itself might call for a sockpuppet investigation. Anyhow, this article needs to be removed. bender235 (talk) 23:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable. Should have been deleted before this Op47 (talk) 22:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 11:56, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Really? If so, what peer-reviewed article has he published? Or, more importantly, which other peer-reviewed literature cites Bell's works? --bender235 (talk) 01:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think publications like The Appraisal Journal or Bloomberg's Environmental Due Diligence Guide meet Wikipedia's criteria on peer-reviewed sources. --bender235 (talk) 17:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - wouldn't seem to pass our inclusion criteria. We need more than mere citations - we need significant coverage in reliable sources. The article is both promotional and dishonest, giving the subject credit for things and citing the subject's own work as verification for that credit. Wikipedia is WP:NOTLINKEDIN. St★lwart111 07:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Please provide specific examples of each of your contentions. There are two references to his own work: "Strategy 360" and his PhD thesis, "Post-traumatic Behaviors: The Socioeconomic Reasoning of Homeowners Who Voluntarily Remained in the Aftermath of Hurricane Katrina." "Strategy 360" is only referenced once for basic information about Bell's occupation; and his PhD thesis is a peer-reviewed paper, which can be cited and in any event, is cited only to demonstrate the contributions the paper has made. Sahar27 (talk) 22:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete This article has "promotion" written all over it. For example, the way that some fairly insubstantial newspaper articles are cited half a dozen times when the article actually says virtually nothing about the fact being cited. (Just because a news article has the word "Katrina" in a single sentence doesn't mean that you put Katrina in the WP article and add a separate cite.) Also, citing two books as being Bell's "influences" is really not kosher, and looks like a way to pad the references. In addition, one of them seems to be an overview of theories by other economists rather than the presentation of the author's own theories, so it isn't clear how this is an "influence" by a known economist. ("Presents fifteen classic economics readings by such scholars as Armen A. Alchian, George A. Akerlof, David J. Teece, Oliver E. Williamson, Michael E. Porter, R. H. Coase, and Harold Demsetz. Analyzes the implications of their findings for the fields of organization theory, development, and behavior.") The number of edits that have been done to this page is rather astounding, although nearly all have been done by a small number of accounts. The bottom line, however, is that in spite of this effort, nothing here rises to the level of notability. LaMona (talk) 01:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Each of those articles cites his work. Please re-read them or request a PDF version if that is easier. Also, the citations to the books for Bell's are meant to provide context for the authority of the authors/economists. Bell's Wikipedia page only provides factual information about his credentials, experience, and work so this can keep going on and on, and the law of diminishing returns begins to apply. The bottom line is that this is a person who has made tremendous contributions with his research, publications, and case-work; his career is interesting enough to be featured in the media; and his unique experience developed through his consultations on some of the world's most serious disasters helps to impart extremely useful insights. For all these reasons, Bell is a good candidate for a Wikipedia page; the point of Wikipedia is to provide a free public good. Sahar27 (talk) 09:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep These delete recommendations are factually wrong. I have checked and everything is factual and well-cited. Bell has obtained high notoriety professionally, academically and with the mass media. Bell literally wrote the book on the topic of Real Estate Damages (which is cited) and this book is published by the Appraisal Institute in Chicago. Bender235 asks about what peer-reviewed articles (which is not even a Wikipedia requirement for an article) yet he/she apparently did not read the Wikipedia article on Bell, which cites 11 peer-reviewed articles. There is a ton of independent and substantial notoriety of Bell, I just saw an article on the front page of the LA Times and he was on ABC with Diane Sawyer a few months ago. Obviously this is notable work. Bcar92 (talk) 20:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There has been very significant coverage of his career for many years, including both the media and peer-reviewed articles. He has written the following peer-reviewed articles in The Appraisal Journal, which is the most notable peer-reviewed publication for real estate appraisers:

The Impact of Airport Noise on Residential Real Estate, Project Delay Economics, The Impact of Detrimental Conditions on Property Values, Contaminated Waterways, Medical Office Building Appraisal, and The Analysis of Environmental Case Studies.

I have seen this guy on CNN more than once, and ABC's 20/20. Are you kidding me? Aprais411 (talk) 18:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep The notion that a PhD … whose career has been profiled everywhere from the Wall Street Journal, to People Magazine … and recently on the front-page of the LA Times … and should be deleted is ridicules. Clearly this opponent has motives that have nothing to do with Dr. Bell’s contributions to his profession. Dr. Bell has written 12 articles in peer-reviewed journals, several books and is cited widely in the media. If this article is deleted, then 80% of the articles in Wikipedia should be deleted.

The allegations made are false and misleading. This is not promotional whatsoever and every statement is referenced. Bender235 seems to think that only Wikipedia articles should include people who have published in peer-reviewed articles. This is wrong on two levels. First on its face this position is ridicules. Second, Bender 235 is factually wrong. I went to Dr. Bell’s website and he has written 12 articles that have been published in peer-reviewed journals. So clearly Bender 235 is just a wantabe or competitor of Dr. Bells who has some kind of grudge, but he can’t back up his claims. — Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures Mictach (talk) 19:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)Mictach comment added by Mictach (talk • contribs) 15:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC) Mictach (talk) 19:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm shocked! Not. None of them seem to realise that hysterical, accusatory, non-policy arguments will simply be discarded. But of course that feels more productive than actually making a legitimate argument. St★lwart111 08:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just look at the facts. Bender235 (talk · contribs) starts his argument that Bell has no articles in peer-reviewed journals. It is pointed out that Bell actually has 11. Then Bender235 (talk · contribs) says nobody has cited Bell's work, but again he is factually wrong and Bells work has been shown to be widely cited with a simple google search. Bender235 (talk · contribs) then makes the wild accusation that the Appraisal Journal is not peer reviewed. Again he is factually wrong - again just google it Then notions of "not honest" are tossed out without a single attempt to back it up. Sahar27 (talk) 10:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment - Stalwart et. al. has failed to make a singlet fact-based argument. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and as such should be backed up by facts. Putting aside the sarcasm and meanness, there is no legitimate basis for deletion. Every single assertion has been shown to be false and misleading when the facts are actually looked at. Bells academic and professional contributions are widely cited by the literature ... and if profiles from everyone from the Wall Street Journal to People Magazine (and everyone in between) does not demonstrate notoriety, I don't know what does. Stop with the cheep, sarcastic pot-shots and stick with facts. Sahar27 (talk) 06:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have to laugh, or you'd end up crying at the bizarre, sock-puppetry-riddled, seen-it-all-before attempts to shoe-horn a couple of local news articles and some of the subject's own work into "notability". Again, we need sources about the subject, not written by the subject (those constituting most of the existing references list). One local pop news item (not demonstrating notability beyond a couple of suburbs) is disingenuously cited a staggering 21 times! Your actions here are actually doing more harm that good - suggesting (if not confirming) that this was all an attempt to promote the subject from the start rather than the effort of a few new account holders to contribute genuine content. St★lwart111 07:35, 29 September 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Randall_Bell_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1068845150"