Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Hugh Smith

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. MBisanz talk 22:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Hugh Smith

Charles Hugh Smith (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)

Non notable author. WorldCat shows all of his books are self published, and held in essentially no libraries (I cannot tell if Trewe Press is strictly a self-publisher, but their one book of his is in 1 library only. DGG ( talk ) 19:28, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 20:31, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:42, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only conceivably legitimate claim of notability might be the CNBC reference, but even that is rather brief and sparse. It's enough to ward off a speedy deletion, but this hardly constitutes significant coverage. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:39, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I suspect that Trewe Press is actually CHS's own printing firm, as his book seems to be the only thing they have printed. In any case, WP:PRIMARY. The remaining sources are insufficient to pass WP:AUTHOR, not demonstrating broad coverage, popularity, or long-term influence. Muffled Pocketed 08:29, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I verified that the author has published the books listed on the page. As the Amazon model pushes self-publishing and there are many popular self-published authors on Amazon I don't see why whether the books are published by Amazon or another publishing house matters. I checked his blog popularity on http://www.trafficestimate.com/oftwominds.com and it shows more than 100,000 views per month, which seems notable. Michael614 (talk) 10:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It's because a self-publishing 'house' will publish anything if paid enough, with no review, checks or balances as to the quality, accuracy etc of what they are publishing. Also, although the thing takes forever to load, the blog aggregator kindly informs us that 'Monthly visitor traffic is down 34.1%' since last year. Muffled Pocketed 14:25, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Amazon deletes books for lack of quality frequently. It also flags for other issues found. If no Amazon published authors are to be listed in Wikipedia that is troubling as many popular authors are chosing this model. Example NYT bestseller Barry Eisler turned down a $500K deal from his publisher, St. Martin’s, in order to self-publish his next book. http://www.writersdigest.com/editor-blogs/there-are-no-rules/digitization-new-technology/bestselling-author-turns-down-500k-deal-to-self-publish Michael614 (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that isn't troubling in the least. An author doesn't automatically become notable by publishing books. If the books or the author get no significant coverage in reliable sources, they don't merit inclusion in Wikipedia. Arguing about bestselling authors is a non-sequitur. Such authors already have ample independent coverage of themselves and their works to merit an article. We are discussing this author, and so far none of the 'keep' arguments have brought forth anything meeting WP:NAUTHOR criteria. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:20, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether the blog traffic is down or up this year it is still above 100k views per month. Is that not notable? If not then what is a notable viewship in the blogosphere? Michael614 (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Web traffic has never been a criterion for notability on Wikipedia. As someone who has been around here since 2004, you should know that. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:14, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment:. You may get many SPA keeps from now. I've answered over 100 e-mails yesterday at OTRS complaining about the deletion, that the deletion is politicly driven, etc.. Those who asked, I have directed to this page Ronhjones  (Talk) 15:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete blogger and commentator whose work and books have not received the level of attention to constitute notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:32, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This delete is entirely political and undeniably pro-Clinton. This delete discussion began precisely after Charles Hugh Smith published a blog article regarding foundation frauds, and specified the Clinton Foundation as one of many foundation frauds. C.H.S. writes prolifically, has myriad visits to his site each month ( [1] ) and has published at least 16books on current subjects. [2] [3]
-
The fact that his books may or may not be self-published is of no consequence and completely irrelevant. He writes on topics that are current and relevant to the evolving economic sphere of America and its "partners". More importantly he writes about the flailing American Empire and its coming implosions, ( his analysis ) which is of great importance if the things he foresees come to pass. I have no external source for this opinion of mine, I simply read his posts daily and I can think.
-
THIS DELETION WAS ENTIRELY POLITICAL and censorship of the very worst kind.
-
If writing thousands of blog posts, that are visited millions of times, and writing SIXTEEN books that sell well on Amazon is not notable, then I need an explanation of why it is not.
-
Again, it is irrelevant, and demonstrably so, that self-publishing is not a factor.
-
Signed
SnowieGeorgieSnowieGeorgie (talk) 20:52, 9 October 2016 (UTC) — SnowieGeorgie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
@SnowieGeorgie: No comment on the projection, your post completely goes against WP:Assume good faith, a site cornerstone. Everyone else has listed reasons based on site policies and guidelines, such as WP:GNG and WP:Verifiability. Unless you can prove (using WP:DIFFs) that any editor here would be doing this on behalf of the Clintons (no, !voting "delete" is not proof in itself, you need other evidence), your post is malicious and discredits your argument.
If you are incapable of viewing other editors as potentially honest human beings who are operating by this site's standards (and not some paranoid inversion of your own obvious politics), you should leave this trust-based project and start a blog. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The assertions on motives on deletion are incorrect on date as well as motive. The article was deleted last June [4]. It was however deleted without debate Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, so that's why we're here now, and accusations definitely don't help any argument. Tom Ruen (talk) 17:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Politically motivated. BOOOOOOO! DISQUALIFIED!! By mere fact that you have votes to keep, it shows Charles is "notable'. Your laughable "notability tests" are a despicable shame to the archival process and to journalism. You should be utterly ashamed of yourselves, you miserable miserable thought police you. Know that all the greatest scholars and compilers of history look down upon you with contempt, and one day your grandchildren will curse your names when they learn YOU were responsible for turning WAR into PEACE, IGNORANCE into POWER. Shame on you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codymckibb (talk • contribs) 18:37, 11 October 2016 (UTC) — Codymckibb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
@Codymckibb: Shame on your complete failure to assume good faith. Take off the tin foil hat and either present sources or quit crying. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:54, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No crying here. Just doing what Hunter S. Thompson would have done. Think about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codymckibb (talk • contribs) 19:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC) — Codymckibb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Not really, you seem pretty set on the belief that your views are authoritatively objective. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep more for reason of notablilty due to blogging at this point, since his publications are self-published (at this time). The Web Page of Charles Hugh Smith receives a significant 6,000,000 visits per year. In any case his self-published books are selling at an increasing pace (I need to get figures for those). He has been interviewed 100+ times by the mainstream media and you can see highlights of these at this link: https://www.youtube.com/c/CharlesHSmith . I believe that Wikipedia needs to be more consistent with its standards of notability as there are more than a few author/blogger articles of people would be considered less notable than this. Perhaps this article should me moved to a "sandbox" loaction until the notability of CHS increases to some standard which will satisfy most Adminitrators as it most certainly will in the next year or two. Bruinfan12 (talk) 05:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's standards for notability are consistent: WP:GNG makes it pretty clear that there needs to be multiple independent reliable sources specifically about the subject. Web page hits mean nothing alone, self-publishing means nothing either. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 07:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I think your point rather proves it? If there is an ongoing consensus then the way forward is to allow other users to participate and not to let it stagnate in an old log? Nordic Nightfury 11:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No; it merely proves your disingenuity... the discussion was not moribund. Muffled Pocketed 11:27, 25 October 2016 (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.