This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Alternative Views C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Paranormal C‑class Low‑importance This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Skepticism Unassessed This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Requested articles C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Requested articles, because it is used for the administration of the Requested articles process or it was formerly listed at Requested articles.Requested articlesWikipedia:WikiProject Requested articlesTemplate:WikiProject Requested articlesRequested articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. Biography C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This page just popped up on the WikiProject Paranormal alert - never heard of the guy before and you would think if he has made all these amazing predictions the world would know of this guy. So red flags for me. Looking at the sources and what do we have ... Linkedin, Independent article full of celebrity predictions (none verified), Esquire (same as the Independent), Leicestershire Live, HuffPo, Dan Viet. (these are all within a couple days of each other and read like a press release) Then we have The Australian, The Silver Times, The Spectator and The Guardian. And Psychic News? Seriously? The Atlantic is probably the only RS and they include a short paragraph for Hamilton-Parker in a long list of other predictions for the end of the world. Sorry not buying it - this person does not pass the notability threshold, not even on the fence. This is going to have to be AfD and I'll do it if no one beats me to it. So NO on the DYK. Sgerbic (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I began the deletion process. RobP (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The Australian and the Guardian are both quite confidently RS. I strongly doubt the HuffPo piece is a press release, considering it's tearing him apart. The Independent and Esquire are both falling for him, which, you know, is what it is, but are high-profile enough that if they're falling for him it's worth noting. Vaticidalprophet 22:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rp2006, I have no issue with your prose edits, but your reference edits are betraying a lack of understanding of WP:V and acceptable references.

The "new Nostradamus" attributed quote is entirely appropriate under WP:NONENG; it's attributing that "the people who believe this guy is a psychic call him by this name". This is a representative solid example of "the people who believe this guy is a psychic".

More concerningly, you've removed a source for being behind a paywall, which is completely inappropriate and in total violation of WP:V. WP:PAYWALL makes it 100% clear that a source being paywalled is completely acceptable. In this case, you've removed a ref from Australia's paper of record, which is entirely acceptable. Also, I suspect you may have misread what it was addressing, considering that it was debunking his claims to being a psychic. Vaticidalprophet 03:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This statement at WP:V: "...means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source" is clear. It is not possible under these circumstances to verify the claims. I understand the last resort approach is to allow such material. But here, surely there are refs you can find that are in English AND accessible. RobP (talk) 03:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That statement is not, and is very intentionally, by at this point twenty years of consensus not "they can be verified in an instant by a monolingual English speaker paying $0 for results accessible on Google". This is me following best practice, not last-resort practice. In fact, the FUTON bias tends to make articles worse, not better -- non-paywalled news sources in particular are not infrequently lower quality. Vaticidalprophet 03:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rp2006: This is not what WP:V and WP:RS say, it is not what they mean, and it is not how they've ever been interpreted before. If you'd like to change the policy to deprecate all non-English content, that seems like a conversation better-suited to the talk page for WP:RS or the village pump. jp×g 03:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the argument concerning FUTON bias refers to scholarly journals and NOT news articles concerning a "psychic" like we have in this article. RobP (talk) 03:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would you prefer the article be balanced in favour of the FUTON sources that think he's a psychic rather than the paywalled ones that point out he changes his predictions retroactively? Vaticidalprophet 03:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to answer that (I say facetious) - as I cannot actually verify what is in the paywalled references. RobP (talk) 03:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, though, this is simply not what the policy is. The fact that a reader cannot verify all information from a Web browser for free is not required for a source's inclusion. Such a policy would fundamentally break the encyclopedia: ((cite book)), for example, is used on more than a million pages. (And there are plenty of ways to view paywalled content (instutitional subscriptions, browser extensions, archive websites, Google cache, libgen, sci-hub, etc); have you tried these?) jp×g 03:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And like I said, I understand the reason for the policy... cases where there isn't a choice. This isn't that. I have written something like 20 articles, 2 GAs... and have never had to rely on such refs. Not once. Just because something CAN be done does not mean it SHOULD be in a specific case. Someone is being stubborn here. But so be it. RobP (talk) 04:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]