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. - Philippe | Talk 05:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G. Edward Griffin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Still doesn't seem notable, although the sources have improved considerably from the last deletion. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please note that the article was rewritten from scratch specifically to meet notability criteria, which it succeeded in doing in one go, according to the deleting admin. John J. Bulten (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw, change to Keep. Notable enough, although cleanup to remove the self-promotion is still necessary. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'd actually argue that the sources are even that much better. There's certainly more of them, but of the "new" sources many are paysites and thus invisible. Even discounting that major problem, many aren't actually about Griffin himself, but reference or briefly touch on him (some don't mention him at all). Some more are completely irrelevant. Others are such as a user-posted review or a review from a small newspaper "that a good friend gave me to ponder over". Even what looks superficially good - an appearance on a bestseller list - turns out to mention the book at #10 on the softcover list of business books from a small independent bookseller. The article's been given a makeover, but underneath it's just the same, with no new convincing reliable sources. Neutral. Improved, but I'm still not convinced, and still more than a whiff of self-promotion about it. Needs to be far more NPOV.. Black Kite 19:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I take it BK means "aren't" much better. Paysites: Believe I only used free and verifiable content from paysites. Not (directly) about Griffin: Why would that disqualify a source? Don't mention him at all: Was unaware my searches for him actually turned up sources that didn't mention him, please demonstrate. Irrelevant: Appears a judgment call because of being not (directly) about him. Reviews: The Slashdot review was on its homepage and widely seen; a small newspaper review is generally a good example of a reliable source and should not be disqualified just because the reviewer got the book from a good friend. Small bookseller: Actually, the other cite (National Post) suggests that the Tattered Cover was quoting a nationwide top-10 list, not its own sales. Makeover: I never saw the prior article. John J. Bulten (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep barely notable Dreamspy (talk) 18:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Black Kite. Justin Eiler (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Per WP:PERNOM, please state your own reasons for deletion. John J. Bulten (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It was recreated by the admin who closed it as being sufficient and it was recreated only hours ago. I honestly think it's a little too early to start putting it up for deletion again. The point about paysites isn't really relevant as the paysites are for newspapers, something that can be looked up offline. Also the book store you mentioned has its own article on Wikipedia as one of the largest independent bookstores in the U.S. It also contains over half a million books so it is pretty significant. Also, I happen to know this article does not contain all the sources that could be brought up.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are now multiple independent about the man and his (varied) career. The fact that many articles require registration or special access does not diminish the fact that:

• His book World Without Cancer was reviewed by the American Journal of Public Health, July, 1976, Vol. 66, No. 7
• His opinions from this or other books by him quoted by newspapers in New Zealand (TAX CUTS: THEY'RE ALL DOING IT BUT US, 27 February 2008 The Independent Financial Review), India (Fed needs global watch, 29 December 2007, The Hindu); Nigeria (Media Complicity in the World's Worst Crimes, 8 June 2007, Daily Trust/All Africa Global Media); United Kingdom (So many 'breakthroughs', 31 May 2005, Newsquest Media Group Newspapers), Canada (In Trust, Canadian Business 79 no 7 2006), the US (Laetrile Makes a Comeback on the Web; 22 March 2000, Wall Street Journal)
• An article about him in the Los Angeles Daily News (T.O.'S GRIFFIN ALL BOOKED UP WITH WRITING, FILM PROJECTS, 22 May 1995)
• His book The Creature from Jekyll Island listed as one of the top 10 Books on History and Current Affairs, 9 August 2004 National Post, a nationally distributed Canadian daily.
• Quoted in the Complete Idiot's Guide to the Federal Reserve [1], though the title of the book may undermine my point, I suppose!
• A googlebooks search finds 90 books that cite him [2].

I can send copies of these articles to anybody who wishes to see them in black and white if you send me a message by email. I believe that he meets the notability criteria: he has been widely cited in independent reliable sources around the world. --Slp1 (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thank you for these. I placed the first one into the article (free online access) - a review on his cancer book by a scientist in a peer-reviewed journal, very nice! Maybe someone can include more of these references, but I haven't found the right spot yet. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable enough now with the improved sources. ArcAngel (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Controversial figure but a notable one. Puark (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, whether it's accurate or not his book Jekyll Island is widely cited on Google Books and there appear to have been sufficient sources in news media to have a biography, solving the primary source problems of prior versions of the article. That some sources are "paysites" has no relevance in policy that I know of; not all editors can read other languages, but we permit non-English sources, for example, and many people connected with academia have access to Nexis and other services. The question is whether such sources are verifiable, not whether they are trivially accessible. --Dhartung | Talk 21:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I was merely invoking the Black Kite Rule, which states that the notability of the article is inversely proportional to the percentage of the reference that are paysites. Though to be serious, I did expand on my reasoning. Black Kite 00:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The man has a rather devoted and growing fan base, which easily includes most of Ron Paul's supporters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.157.14 (talk) 23:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thanks for your contribution, 24.... If you will allow me, your opinion (and that of any other newcomers who may comment here in the future) will probably have more weight if you can articulate your views with greater reference to the criteria for inclusion. Being popular or having a fan base isn't a criteria, unless it can be verified by independent reliable sources. See here for suggestions of useful and less useful arguments in this kind of discussion.--Slp1 (talk) 00:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• keep He has authored over a dozen books. There is no reason to delete this other then political bias.Byates5637 (talk) 03:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: When I edited this file I found a new entry here but apparently the user had deleted the last ">" in the file and none of the following was displayed any more. So this entry was not properly signed (I just found 4 tildes). That's why I deleted it, in case somebody is upset: Just try it again. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is lost, I have added Byates's comment back.--Slp1 (talk) 03:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I agree with everything, that "The Devil's Advocate" and "Slp1" have said so far. I like to remind everybody who knows of a reference that should be included: INCLUDE IT! Part of the reason why the article was deleted the last time, was that none of the promised references actually was included during the AfD discussion. I also like to remind (the other half of you) that the deletion of an article should be the last option when attempts to improve the article fail. Since this article has been given another chance, it seems sensible to me to discuss the shortfalls of the article on its discussion page, which did not even exist before now. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thanks for your assistance, Free; I believe the (presumably heavy) discussion of the prior article is now considered persona non grata because it related to (presumably unreliable) material not scheduled for restoration. John J. Bulten (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -I fail to see how this article meets Wikipedia's criteria for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.139.183.61 (talk) 20:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• ' ' ' Keep ' ' ' Why delete something that can be revised until complete as possible? I think the originator of this delete request has an axe to grind... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billbobiguns (talk • contribs) 15:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC) — Bilbobiguns (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep: As the initiating author, I'd merely like to reemphasize: (1) I recreated the article from scratch, without ever having seen the deleted article, with complete reliance on WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:N; (2) The article was accepted as meeting those standards and restored by the deleting admin, Nihonjoe, on its first pass, and has been substantially stable over the weekend; (3) Yes, it's waay too early to try deleting this again; (4) The only specific arguments for deletion come from Black Kite, and they are mostly arguments for deleting sources, but even if all those sources were deleted, there would still be sufficient core in the remaining sources to establish notability. John J. Bulten (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. As nominator, I'd like to be able see his notability and change my !vote, but I'm finding it difficult to find much about him from non-fringe sources. The books and videos exist, the publishers are non-notable to the extent that I can't tell if they're vanity press (and none are notable enough to have a separate Wikipedia article), and almost all the commentary is from fringe sources, such as the John Birch Society, creationist (I mean, intelligent design-oriented) book reviews, tax protester literature, Ron Paul, etc. Is there mainstream commentary on him other than the "kook-of-week" interview? I don't know what creationists and tax protesters see in him, but they seem to see something. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability doesn't mean a person is notable in the "mainstream" or frequently mentioned in mainstream sources. He's very notable in many of the groups you mention and the fact he receives mainstream news coverage is pretty significant as well.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch "creationist" above. I missed Noah's Ark in the lead, even though it doesn't seem to be referenced in the article. I still think we need some mainstream source for his notability, even if only among Cranks WP:FRINGE organizations. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help with the article BTW. Can you let me know why these sources would not be mainstream? Los Angeles Daily News, Wall Street Journal, ESPN, Boston Globe, Calgary Herald, Rocky Mountain News, National Post. I appreciate it. John J. Bulten (talk) 15:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I've read dozens of books on the Federal Reserve and the big players involved in getting the Federal Reserve Act passed. While I would love to see a debate between Ron Chernow and Edward Griffin, I think it is undeniable that Griffin's version of the events matches very closely with those documented by Rockellefer-Morgan friendly Chernow. They mostly differ on the interpration of the motives and inner thoughts of the main players. Frankly his interpration of motives seems more believable unless Morgan, Mandell House and Rockefeller had sudden changes of mind and decided they mostly care about free markets and open competition. a clsoe study of those players leaves me with the conclusion they cared mostly about consolidating power, corporate socialism and defending elites from open competition. Please reconsider your attempt at censoring the library of the world. Even if you think the gold standard is idiotic and greenspan was an idiotic for his anti-federal-reserve articles written in the 1960's, The debate should not be flushed down the memory hole. Gabe Harris gabeh73...march 3 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabeh73 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I don't understand how this work, but some guy doesn't see enough sources that he likes about Griffin and so he wants to flush this down the memoryhole? may I suggest you try reading his book and point out the statements you think are wrong in it! If you ahve read Jekyll Island then you'll see that given his interpretation of history the whole reasoning for bringing the Federal Reserve into place was to screw the middle and lower class. This essentially lines up with Greenspans view in his 1967 article "Gold and Economic Freedom". So even if it is all lies, the mere fact that such things have been written about the Federal Reserve and the greatest fed chairman in history Alan Greenspan agreed that the opponents of the gold standard had a "shabby secret" and the fiat currency is what made the rapid accent of the welfare state possible.....well even if he chagned his views later it is interstign piece of history to know that there is a plausible theory that the Federal Reserve is not working in the best interest of the common man. To delete this man's wiki article is a show of ignorance or evil...no better than a 1950's baptist preachers book burning! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabeh73 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gabeh, decisions about whether to keep or delete an article not made based anything to do with Griffin's opinions and whether they are right or wrong. By policy:Wikipedia is not censored in any way. The decision will be made based on whether he is notable: ie can we verify that he is notable based on reliable sources (which doesn't include people's personal opinions)? These are the policies for inclusion here, and this is what we are discussing here. I don't know if you read my note above, but this might help you and others as you frame your comments here. Slp1 (talk) 23:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is a useful essay entitled Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions that Griffin supporters should really read before weighing in. Some of the weak arguments that carry very little (if any) weight in deciding whether to keep the article include statements like "It's useful," "It's interesting," "It's the truth," etc. Arguments that are also not too helpful include "I like it" or because Griffin has "Fame in X" or has X amount of google hits we should keep it. Wrong. None of these arguments really matter. What does matter is how well cited the article is using reliable third-party sources in order to (1) determine notability, (2) comply with verifiability, and (3) avoid original research. Fortunately or unfortunately, John J. Bulten did an excellent and admirable job complying with policies and guidelines. He should be congratulated for his hard work. The article is a keep now. Everything else is just noise. J Readings (talk) 23:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except the sources which are non-trivial aren't reliable and the reliable ones are trivial. --Calton | Talk 03:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do explain to me how these are trivial or unreliable?

Los Angeles Daily News article [3]

Nora Sayre book published by Rutgers University Press [4]

James Arnt book Selling the Free Market: The Rhetoric of Economic Correctness [5]

Book review in American Journal of Public Health [6]

Slp1 (talk) 04:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the extensive evidence of notability provided above. John254 00:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep So when will this 3rd nomination be closed? As I can see very clearly, KEEP, Thanks to all who wanted to (Keep) this article. And sure no Thanks to who wanted to delete it, Anyway You (all) have fun (Keep Only).

(LakeOswego (talk) 01:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

• Delete. Still a non-notable crank. Overwhelming the article with references doesn't disguise their individual very low quality. Trivial or passing mentions -- like this community noticeboard mention being passed off as a reliable source -- don't rise to the level being enough to base an actual article or demonstrate any real-world impact or notice. If he wants to promote his self-published books and self-produced movies, let him start his own website. --Calton | Talk 03:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While the source you gave seems to be nonsense, many are certainly not. The American Journal of Public Health is not trivial or low quality. Neither is the Wall Street Journal. Also, as for as the thing about being self-published and self-produced, that's because he has his own media company. He's also produced a film directed by an Academy-Award winning director which was screened at a Libertarian Party convention in Missouri and so it's not like he's just set up a lemonade stand. Mind you, notability doesn't always mean a person is going to be mentioned all the time.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, the Austin American-Statesman is a mainstream Cox Enterprises paper with editorial review and reputation for fact-checking and accuracy: how is it not a WP:RS? It's not notable for nonsense. Or does Calton mean that the brevity of the mention is insufficient to demonstrate the fact that Griffin lectures on his book? See Free's comment below. John J. Bulten (talk) 14:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even funnier than your chanting the mantra "reliable sources" is your inability to grasp the actual purpose, value and/or relative importance of same: the sources which are non-trivial aren't reliable and the reliable ones are trivial -- and your gassing on about the reliability of the Austin Statesman American completely neglects to mention that the source is nothing but a single line in a community-events calendar mentioning that Griffin will be appearing at a local bookstore. To hold up that as a worthy reliable source is fundamentally dishonest, and certainly confirms my beliefs about the motivations and purpose of this promotional effort. --Calton | Talk 16:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My friend, you are the one who questioned the big Austin paper being a reliable source (and the one making accusations of cranks and dishonesty. What you meant to question, I now realize, is its being significant coverage in a reliable source. Nor did I neglect to mention the brevity. Granted, I'm still learning the lingo myself. But I think now that we're up to 25-30 sources (with a good majority reliable and nontrivial, and with my and Slp1's questions unanswered above) the result of the AFD is obvious. John J. Bulten (talk) 17:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment When I look at this discussion and the talk page of the article, I find that the concerns about notability and reliability by those who endorse the deletion of the article, have been addressed several times by a number of editors, in a reasonable way and by directly presenting sources. However, instead of directly addressing the presented evidence, the advocates of the deletion merely repeat their general concern by saying that the criteria still are not met, but without providing a reasonable explanation, why the presented evidence fails to meet the criteria. This and the fact that single weak sources are criticized and promoted as evidence that the overall quality of the article is poor, indicates that the supporters of these arguments have not taken the evidence given to them into serious consideration. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 07:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No kidding! There ought to be an understanding that simply waving the flag named "WP:RS" is not equivalent to winning the case-- at some point the burden of proof has been met by the claimant of notability, and it shifts to the flag-waver. I proposed such at WT:RS, but was shouted down. John J. Bulten (talk) 14:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

response - You both make good points. In a situation like this, I would advise an article's supporters to ruthlessly purge the article of all the fluff, because (fair or not) a host of crummy citations to blogs and forums tends to have the psychological effect of diminishing the perceived quality both of the article and of the referencing thereof. (Perhaps the presence of so many non-reliable sources leads other editors to suspect that the alleged reliable sources will turn out to be equally worthless?) --Orange Mike | Talk 14:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, Orange Mike. Some of these sources have already disappeared during the recent editing process, and we are still working on it. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 16:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I fail to see how this doesn't meet notability and the article has a variety of sources, not all of which are "fringe." Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per BlackKite. — Κaiba 14:55, 6 March 2008 (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.