Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/G. Edward Griffin (4th nomination): Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 06:24, 11 March 2015 editDarx9url (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users2,168 edits →G. Edward Griffin ← Previous edit		Revision as of 17:00, 11 March 2015 edit undoCarrite (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers99,104 edits →G. Edward Griffin Next edit →
Line 55:		Line 55:
	*'''Weak Keep''' The article is poor written. The over all number of sources available are few with many of which being poor. But there's a fine line at which someone is notable and not notable via Misplaced Pages. It's a reasonable enough determination that at least Griffin's toe has crossed this line. This is an annoying enough determination, considering exuberant contributors such BLP's can attract, but this is would be the main basis that would shift my opinion to weak delete.The answer to the articles woes may be stripping it further.] (]) 04:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)		*'''Weak Keep''' The article is poor written. The over all number of sources available are few with many of which being poor. But there's a fine line at which someone is notable and not notable via Misplaced Pages. It's a reasonable enough determination that at least Griffin's toe has crossed this line. This is an annoying enough determination, considering exuberant contributors such BLP's can attract, but this is would be the main basis that would shift my opinion to weak delete.The answer to the articles woes may be stripping it further.] (]) 04:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Keep''' Clearly a fringe conspiracy theorist, but enough cover in mainstream sources for an article. ] (]) 06:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)		*'''Keep''' Clearly a fringe conspiracy theorist, but enough cover in mainstream sources for an article. ] (]) 06:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
			* '''Keep''' - GNG pass. One of the worst lead sentences of the BLP Rules Era has finally been changed, but the lead remains very very tendentious. A couple activists need to stand down and real Wikipedians need to step up to make this an NPOV biography. ] (]) 17:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:00, 11 March 2015

G. Edward Griffin

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an unusual AfD. It was sparked because careful consideration of what superficially seems to be a lot of sources turned up (surprisingly) nothing that could be used to establish notability according to the rules of WP:BIO nor WP:GNG in light of the self-promotion of the subject and his fellow far-right believers. Apologies for the length, but there is a lot to consider here. I will collapse the reasons below for you to read.

Extended content
Indeed, in the last AfD where the article was kept, the nominator eventually seemed convinced that such sources were forthcoming, but there is now a reconsidering of this position on the talkpage of the article. There are a few advocates who seem to be believers in various WP:FRINGE philosophies that Griffin spouts who argue at length about his notability and even that the man is somehow a mainstream thinker, but I believe that such arguments are intentional red herrings. At the time of the last AfD, some commentators seemed to suggest that it was possible that G. Edward Griffin was notable enough for an article as he was being promoted by Glenn Beck as an authoritative voice in opposition to the Federal Reserve. But simply being used as one of the many "sources" that Glenn Beck promotes is not enough to establish biographical notability of the subject. To be clear, the article falls under our WP:FRINGEBLP guideline which asks us to consider both the biographical aspects of the article and the fringe-theory promotion that can come with it. One of the biggest issues we have with sourcing fringe articles is the issue of independent sourcing. Fringe sources which lack the level of reliability we would normally require are not enough to establish notability. We require outside notice and this is something that this article does not seem to have. The sources are all primary sources to Griffin's works, websites, and acolytes on the one hand or to extremely fringe ideological groups on the other. Going through the Google Scholar hits is particularly disheartening. All that is found are off-handed mentions (not enough to establish notability or ensure any sense of a possible WP:NPOV compliance) or completely unreliable sources such as blogposts or John Birch Society-type newsletters. Simply not what we can use to establish notability. To play devil's advocate, there are essentially only three sources I can find which come close to the WP:FRIND ideal, and they are not enough to pass our threshold, in my estimation. The first is this agglomeration from media matters. The only problem is that it is essentially a collection of quotes from Griffin with nothing to guide us on as to his notability. It's essentially an inherited claim from mediamatters evaluation of Glenn Beck. Second is A science blog from Australia and the source doesn't really speak to the person of Griffin as much as his claims about a certain quack cancer treatment. In any case, I'm hesitant about using blogs for notability establishment especially in WP:BLPs. The third is yet another blog from Forbes.com which suffers similarly as the second source. Neither of these last two sources do a particularly convincing job of establishing Griffin as notable. Rather, they are almost a testament to his lack of notability, they seem to focus on his obscurity and marginalization as a telling feature which is almost a News of the Weird-style that is warned about in WP:NFRINGE. At the end of the day, we are supposed to err on the side of caution with respect to WP:BLPs. Our question should be, "Is it possible, given the available sources, to write a neutral and encyclopedic article on this living person?" In the case of this person, it does not seem possible because sources simply do not exist that seriously deal with the person or his oeuvre as a subject. We are looking at a person who is famous only in WP:FRINGE circles, which is historically a strong delete argument here. The superficial appearance of many WP:GHITS (all of which are to sources that are not independent enough to serve as reliable sources of his notability) is not enough to establish a serious bibliography that would be necessary to write an article on the subject. It is possible to quotemine some individual statements of independent journalists and commentators who have offhandedly mentioned this person, but offhanded mention is not the standard for WP:GNG. Someday, a group of academics may write an exhaustive analysis of members of the John Birch Society. Maybe Griffin will be afforded the outside attention that would be necessary for us to actually treat the subject fairly. Until that time, I do not think it appropriate that Misplaced Pages have an article on this person.

Extended content

Indeed, in the last AfD where the article was kept, the nominator eventually seemed convinced that such sources were forthcoming, but there is now a reconsidering of this position on the talkpage of the article. There are a few advocates who seem to be believers in various WP:FRINGE philosophies that Griffin spouts who argue at length about his notability and even that the man is somehow a mainstream thinker, but I believe that such arguments are intentional red herrings.

At the time of the last AfD, some commentators seemed to suggest that it was possible that G. Edward Griffin was notable enough for an article as he was being promoted by Glenn Beck as an authoritative voice in opposition to the Federal Reserve. But simply being used as one of the many "sources" that Glenn Beck promotes is not enough to establish biographical notability of the subject.

To be clear, the article falls under our WP:FRINGEBLP guideline which asks us to consider both the biographical aspects of the article and the fringe-theory promotion that can come with it. One of the biggest issues we have with sourcing fringe articles is the issue of independent sourcing. Fringe sources which lack the level of reliability we would normally require are not enough to establish notability. We require outside notice and this is something that this article does not seem to have. The sources are all primary sources to Griffin's works, websites, and acolytes on the one hand or to extremely fringe ideological groups on the other. Going through the Google Scholar hits is particularly disheartening. All that is found are off-handed mentions (not enough to establish notability or ensure any sense of a possible WP:NPOV compliance) or completely unreliable sources such as blogposts or John Birch Society-type newsletters. Simply not what we can use to establish notability.

To play devil's advocate, there are essentially only three sources I can find which come close to the WP:FRIND ideal, and they are not enough to pass our threshold, in my estimation. The first is this agglomeration from media matters. The only problem is that it is essentially a collection of quotes from Griffin with nothing to guide us on as to his notability. It's essentially an inherited claim from mediamatters evaluation of Glenn Beck. Second is A science blog from Australia and the source doesn't really speak to the person of Griffin as much as his claims about a certain quack cancer treatment. In any case, I'm hesitant about using blogs for notability establishment especially in WP:BLPs. The third is yet another blog from Forbes.com which suffers similarly as the second source. Neither of these last two sources do a particularly convincing job of establishing Griffin as notable. Rather, they are almost a testament to his lack of notability, they seem to focus on his obscurity and marginalization as a telling feature which is almost a News of the Weird-style that is warned about in WP:NFRINGE.

At the end of the day, we are supposed to err on the side of caution with respect to WP:BLPs. Our question should be, "Is it possible, given the available sources, to write a neutral and encyclopedic article on this living person?" In the case of this person, it does not seem possible because sources simply do not exist that seriously deal with the person or his oeuvre as a subject. We are looking at a person who is famous only in WP:FRINGE circles, which is historically a strong delete argument here. The superficial appearance of many WP:GHITS (all of which are to sources that are not independent enough to serve as reliable sources of his notability) is not enough to establish a serious bibliography that would be necessary to write an article on the subject. It is possible to quotemine some individual statements of independent journalists and commentators who have offhandedly mentioned this person, but offhanded mention is not the standard for WP:GNG.

Someday, a group of academics may write an exhaustive analysis of members of the John Birch Society. Maybe Griffin will be afforded the outside attention that would be necessary for us to actually treat the subject fairly. Until that time, I do not think it appropriate that Misplaced Pages have an article on this person.

jps (talk) 14:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Keep "Fringe" people may indeed be notable, and it is fairly clear that is the case at hand. Mentioned in massive numbers of reliable sources. Mentioned in a substantial number of books (including books which do not agree with him). Viewed over 16K times in past 90 days. In short: the BLP gets a substantial number of views, indicating that readers find him notable. Absent a sound and compelling reason for deletion, the default is "keep". Note 3rd AfD was a tad snowy Keep (as sources were added in abundance). 2nd AfD was closed as "delete" on the specific grounds of failing RS - though the !votes did not actually appear to support that close. 1st AfD was a tad snowy as Keep. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Mentioned, perhaps, but only in passing. The reliable sources are generally discussing Creature from Jekyll Island, and thus far the article's advocates have struggled to find anything in a reliable source that rises above the level of a namecheck. Guy (Help!) 18:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

That book does not have an article - and is, in fact, a redirect to this BLP. It is, moreover, noted in a large number of books including

The Fourth Branch: The Federal Reserve's Unlikely Rise to Power and Influence By Bernard Shull; Praeger, 2005. 272 pages inter alia. If you aver that the book is notable, then that should be the title here - and no reason for deletion? On the other hand, many people who are primarily noted for a single book do have biographies, so I do not find that a strong argument for deletion. I would also point out that the nominator thinking he or she must address every comment here is not all that utile - the goals of the encyclopedia include serving readers. Collect (talk) 18:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. And the book is clearly notable, and the primary focus of critical commentary. The author, not so much. Guy (Help!) 23:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Until the time that we use reader metrics to determine what is or is not notable, I don't think we can rely on that as a convincing argument for keeping an article. WP:ENC is what we are, not clickbait. jps (talk) 18:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Delete. Currently, no reliable sources are provided to indicate notability. I could be convinced otherwise if such sources are provided and discussed here, but I currently don't see sources in the article that really establish notability outside of the fringe realm, or reliable sources indicating notability as a conspiracy theorist, crackpot, or other fringe titles either. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Keep for the 4th and 5th, then delete on 6th 10 fringy facts from 10 different fringy sources are mathematically the same as 10 facts from one long in depth interview. His Media Matters profile is extensive, I have promoted it to the lede so more people can see it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

But the profile is little more than a collection of quotes. That's nothing to base an article on. Have our notability standards really sunk so low as to say any person with a media matters page is BLP-worthy? jps (talk) 21:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

If Gertrude Stein edited Misplaced Pages she would say: A reliable source, is a reliable source, is a reliable source. It is a collection of quotes and statements about his beliefs. The article is heavy on his beliefs and less on biographical details about his parents and wife and children, but still article worthy. I believe you need minimally 10 good facts about a person to have a Misplaced Pages worthy stub. This passes my 10 fact rule. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

OK< so I have been namechecked on BBC Radio 4, in the Times Educational Supplement and The Guardian, featured in interviews on BBC Radio Berkshire, described by the BBC Radio 4 PM programme as one of their most frequent correspondents and appeared on air on Radio 4. Where's my article? Guy (Help!) 23:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

If you appeared there as an author or filmmaker, and in each interview you revealed some facts about your life or your beliefs, and we could join together 10 facts, we would have an argument to have a stub about you. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Delete. There are sources which discuss his book The Creature from Jekyll Island, the reliable few among which are less than complimentary, but not one single substantial source has been presented about the man himself, despite an extended debate. Unsurprisingly, as a largely self-published author, Truther, chemtrailer, AIDS denialist, Ark literalist, antivaxer, cancer quackery advocate and proponent of non-standard interpretations of US fiscal and foreign policy, the mainstream media simply ignores him. There are a few articles in whihc people take pot shots at the likes of Glenn Beck for giving him airtime, but there is nothing about Griffin himself, and in cases of controversial people there is a profound danger in being the first mainstream source to even attempt a biographical article. The content on Jekyll Island should be split out and moved back to the present redirect. Richard, at least one previous debate concluded in delete, this is not a shoo-in by any means. Guy (Help!) 17:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Weak Delete - Think I agree with Guy. Really hard to see anything that would constitute direct coverage in RS's. NickCT (talk) 19:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Keep - this AfD is the most ridiculous request EVER. Atsme☯ 02:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- COMMENT - multiple RS cite his work and he is a popular lecturer, and has been interviewed numerous times by leading television news programs and on radio:
- 3x Pulitzer winning editor at the NYTimes, David Barstow advised: "You need to know who Edward Griffin is, and how his book The Creature from Jekyll Island plays into this." I would think if the NYTimes is recommending closer attention, WP should consider that notable.
- Book reviewer, Michael J. Ross: "In the United States, the central figure in this ongoing drama, is our central bank, the Federal Reserve, whose history, power, and effects are explored in G. Edward Griffin's fascinating book The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve."
- Argentinian author, Adrian Salbuchi: "In 1995, American investigator and author, G. Edward Griffin, published what is clearly the most authoritative book on the 'FED' – as it is colloquially called in banking circles and by the mainstream media – 'The Creature from Jekyll Island'.
- WSJ article gives a nice balanced report like we'd expect from ethical journalism.
- Forbes - (ranked 75 US Alexa) - This battle continued up through the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, whose rather dubious creation was nicely described in G. Edward Griffin’s book The Creature from Jekyll Island.
- RT - (67 Russia, 382 Global) - Griffin also takes us back in time, and reminds us how the Fed even came to be – the money trust meeting in secret on Jekyll Island in order to draft a cartel agreement that would eventually be known as the "Federal Reserve Act.
- NPR.org - (129 US Alexa) - quote by Senator Bunning to Bernanke: You put the printing presses into overdrive to fund the government's spending and hand out cheap money to your masters on Wall Street. Your Fed has become the Creature from Jekyll Island. Thank you.
- Natural News - (2,023 US Alexa)
- GoldSilver.com - (ranked 22,303 US Alexa). G. Edward Griffin is an American film producer, author, and political lecturer. He is best known as the author of The Creature From Jekyll Island: A Second Look At The Federal Reserve, a critique of much modern economic theory and practice, specifically the Federal Reserve System.
- , Casey Research - (35,748 US Alexa)
- , The Daily Bell - (49,221 US Alexa)
- Financial Sense - (ranked 49,730 US Alexa). "Listed in Who’s Who in America, he is well known because of his talent for researching difficult topics and presenting them in clear terms that all can understand. One of his best-known books is his critical history of the beginnings of the Federal Reserve, The Creature from Jekyll Island.
- Corbett Report - (88,282 US Alexa)
- Atsme☯ 03:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Keep Unbelievable that this is even being proposed.--Pekay2 (talk) 02:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Weak Keep The article is poor written. The over all number of sources available are few with many of which being poor. But there's a fine line at which someone is notable and not notable via Misplaced Pages. It's a reasonable enough determination that at least Griffin's toe has crossed this line. This is an annoying enough determination, considering exuberant contributors such BLP's can attract, but this is would be the main basis that would shift my opinion to weak delete.The answer to the articles woes may be stripping it further.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Keep Clearly a fringe conspiracy theorist, but enough cover in mainstream sources for an article. Darx9url (talk) 06:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Keep - GNG pass. One of the worst lead sentences of the BLP Rules Era has finally been changed, but the lead remains very very tendentious. A couple activists need to stand down and real Wikipedians need to step up to make this an NPOV biography. Carrite (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Categories: