Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G. Edward Griffin

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

G. Edward Griffin

There is quite a bit of assertion of notability here. However, the links to the organizations that Griffin are involved in are all external links to organizations that appear to have little notability themselves. Unless notability actually shown, Delete. --Nlu (talk) 02:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that the man has acheived enough to deserve an atricle and although the organizations aren't too notable, they're good enough to deserve a mention. I vote Keep.

It says he authored The_Creature_from_Jekyll_Island - that seems like a fairly decent claim to importance. RN 10:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As well as being the author of The_Creature_from_Jekyll_Island this man also made one of the first film documentaries about political corruption in regard to the Federal Reserve system, that alone in my opinion make this man one of the most remarkable people in media at least of or modern time. i know of no other person that clearly put themselves on the record like this man did in 1960(1)(2), and that is not even regarding the many organisations Mr Griffin Founded etc – Keep surely seriously -Theblackbay 10:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also I find it a little perturbing that the article is under construction and someone is trying to delete it? can't we see it finished and then make a decision? or don't we want to see it finished? -Theblackbay 10:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some people think that if an article has to be deleted at all, it's better to do so before too much work has gone into it, because all that work will be wasted if the AfD debate leads to a "delete" decision. Imagine how much worse it would be if you'd spent months and months perfecting the article, and then somebody had said it should be deleted! — Haeleth Talk 12:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is likely to be a keep per WP:BIO: his books seem to have received the "multiple independent reviews" that the guideline proposes as a test for an author's notability.
More information about the controversies that must have erupted around his theories on cancer would reinforce his case. — Haeleth Talk 12:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Claim of notability appears fairly well established. Unless the original tagger can support his own assertion that writing ten books and appearing in or producing three films is not "notable". Wjhonson 15:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above --Mysmartmouth 15:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - I've significantly expanded his list of Works, and added the ISBN and OCLC numbers for easy proof that his works actually exist in various libraries. I would also like to point out that "G Edward Griffin" gets eighty eight THOUSAND google hits.Wjhonson 16:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wjhonson. G y re 17:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep known author. Nickieee 19:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs cleanup, not deletion. The encyclopedia would be much better off if those who run around screaming that we should delete a lot of our material would instead use the time to actually bring that material up to standards. Rogue 9 22:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Controversial figure but clearly a notable one. Appears to meet WP:BIO requirements. Sufficient publications to permit a neutral assessment. --Shirahadasha 23:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - KEEP - Why delete? Makes less sense than Griffin's fear of internal Soviet takover of the U.S.Hoppkorv 01:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The man has written 10 books, that certainly entitles him to a Wikipedia entry. I don't see where there's a basis for a deletion argument. Samurai Drifter 03:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the person in question has written a book which has its own article, and I believe it meets the biography notability criteria quite well. Of course, the article still needs a bit of work in terms of formatting and context, but that's not a basis for deletion. Ronline ✉ 10:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - obviously. NightSky 18:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe that significant notability is evident by comparing this article with the criteria set forth in Wikipedia:Notability (people). Additionally, a google search (with his entire name in quotes) comes up with 87,000 results. If for no other reason, the deletion of this article could create a ‘knowledge gap’ that web users may encounter if they were to search Wikipedia for this man or any of his works mentioned in the article. - Adam Clark ^(User_Talk) ^(email) 04:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you Everybody for making sanity prevail! -Theblackbay 08:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep this please there is significant notability and meets the bio criteria Yuckfoo 06:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above comments, subject is quite notable. RFerreira 20:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - The article needs some work to sound more neutral and less like a promotional pamphlet on this guy's work, but it's not nearly the worst I've seen, and he's been prolific if nothing else. Seems just notable enough to keep. --Jaysweet 20:48, 8 September 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.