Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Green (author)


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 09:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Dan Green (author)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An author of self-published pseudohistorical books about how the Holy Grail is actually buried in Lincoln Cathedral. The article has a fair number of sources, but most of these are either very minor press coverage in Lincolnshire newspapers or are unreliable self-published fringe conspiracy/paranormal websites.

If you search for the books that Green has written, there are no reliable sources for them either. "The Lincoln Da Vinci Code" has one hit from the BBC, which is a comment someone made. The rest is all conspiracy sites and people's personal home pages. The same is true of the DVD "The Murder of Mary Magdalene: Genocide of the Holy Bloodline". There's a YouTube link, some unreliable conspiracy sites and pretty much nothing else.

Fails the criteria at WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. The article also seems rather promotional. That it finishes with a paragraph discussing how his theory about the Holy Grail must be right because a psychic used her powers of percipience to "see" the Holy Grail... well, that's befitting an asylum not an encyclopaedia. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've cleaned the article up greatly and removed the worst of the sources, although I will note that almost every source is a local one. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   10:59, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete This whole business is pseudo-history of a kind close to conspiracy theories. WP should not be countenancing such rubbish.  Peterkingiron (talk) 13:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Dan Green WIKI neither fails the criteria at WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. Whether you agree or disagree with his theories is irrelevant. He is a notable author and documentary filmmaker, who appears on television broadcasts and gives talks and lectures both in the UK and the USA. It would appear there is a concerted attempt to have this page removed simply because certain individuals don't believe in the author's work, and have misrepresented his work and quotes in an excessive pruning of the page. Undoubtedly the critics of Dan Green have never read any of his work and the depth of research he and others have conducted into the subjects he discusses.
 * Nobody should be making a judgement based upon whether or not the studies have any merit, but neither should we assume that everyone voting or editing the article is doing so in order to misrepresent the author. I removed a good amount of information from the page because not only did it read like a non-neutral fan page, but it also read like a pretty big spam entry for the author. That sort of thing is fine for blogs, but not for Wikipedia. I've reverted back to my version because to be perfectly honest, the version you reverted to actually does more to make the page look non-notable and spammy than about a potentially notable person. I would like to caution you against making any such accusations in the future. My biggest concern so far is that all of the sources are predominantly local. Local coverage is always greatly depreciated because local news sources always have a vested interest in promoting someone local: it's good for business, whether the news coverage is negative or positive. As far as showing in lectures, broadcasts, or documentaries goes, those don't always translate to notability here on Wikipedia. Lectures almost never show notability unless the lecture has been covered in reliable sources that are independent of Green, the place holding the lecture, or anyone involved with the lecture. It's the same reason why most public speaking arrangements or musical concerts aren't the type that give notability, regardless of the venue or topic. Now when it comes to television appearances, sometimes those can give notability. Sometimes. If you can show where Green has been the focus of multiple television or radio spots that have focused on him (and not as someone they brought in for a 1-2 sentence "yes, this exists" trivial appearance), then this would help greatly towards notability. The one thing to be careful of is that you note what show he's appearing on. If it's a local channel then that gets depreciated for the same reasons as the newspapers. If his appearance is on a show that isn't really considered to be a reliable source, then that won't really count towards notability regardless of how well known the show is. For example, if Green were to appear on Coast to Coast AM, that wouldn't really be a good source for notability, even though the show is wildly popular. His appearance in or creation of documentaries can help notability, but only if the documentaries have received sustained coverage in reliable sources. If he was someone who appeared in the documentary, then the coverage must mention him to a reasonable extent. Just saying that he was in the documentary isn't enough. In any case, that's my biggest concern and while my current decision is weak delete based upon Green really only having local coverage, if you can show coverage in non-local and reliable sources, I'm willing to change my opinion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   06:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.