Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G. Edward Griffin (2nd nomination)


 * 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 as failing WP:RS, and therefore failing WP:V and WP:N. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 11:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

G. Edward Griffin (2nd nomination)
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Self-publishing conspiracy theorist. Nominated for deletion and kept in December 2006, but none of the fundamental flaws -- complete lack of sourcing, evidence of real-world notability or impact, or even proof of public attention -- has been fixed. It's been over a year, and faith-based assertions of notability don't cut it.

Calton | Talk 02:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep! Mr. Griffin is a professional investigative researcher. His work reflects that title. He does not make sweeping, unfounded statements or claims; his research is well detailed. After reading "World Without Cancer" I felt I understood the presentation as to the physiological mechanism of cancer growth in the human body. I've never seen where that mechanism has been disproven. What I don't understand is orthodoxy's theory of cancer. It does not appear to have one. How can we treat cancer without understanding its cause or onset? Yet we do. Whether we do so effectively or intelligently is another matter entirely. There are plenty of other authors who echo Mr. Griffin's views on cancer in the human body. Are we to systematically delete their work as well because it may challenge the assumptions of the status quo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimveda (talk • contribs) — Jimveda (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The Creature from Jekyll Island: #22,156 World Without Cancer: #17,412 If there are any remaining issues regarding third-party verification, please notify this community of the inconsistencies. However, in the meantime, it would be a grave error to delete this entry. --Rosco999 (talk) 06:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC) — Rosco999 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep I am very befuddled by all this interest to delete Edward Griffin's page. He has written very important factual books which are obviously notable by their Amazon sales ranking (February 22, 2008):

G Edward Griffin - Creature From Jekyll Island A Second Look at the Federal Reserve G. Edward Griffin - A World Without Cancer - The Story Of Vitamin B17 An Idea Whose Time Has Come - G. Edward Griffin - Freedom Force International G. Edward Griffin - Inflation The Science and Politics of Cancer, G. Edward Griffin 2005 Edward Griffin - Seduction of a Generation (Sensitivity Training, Brainwashing) G. Edward Griffin- On Individualism v Collectivism America Bastion of Freedom - Willis E. Stone and G. Edward Griffin G. Edward Griffin speech Tea Party Los Angeles 2007 Who Shall Teach by G. Edward Griffin FIAT EMPIRE - Why the Federal Reserve Violates the U.S. Constitution The Capitalist Conspiracy: An Inside View of International Banking by G. Edward Griffin Soviet Subversion of the Free World Press - 1984 Invisible Ballots, Electronic Voting Machine Fraud These are ALL available for free viewing on Google Video at http://video.google.com. There are many many more. To see the full catalogue of books and videos by Griffin and his associates and all others offered, go to the site http://realityzone.com. There are many reliable sources on the Internet as well as book stores and major publications that can be referenced at university and public libraries across America. This falls well within Wikipedia's verifiability policy. You will also find many radio and video interviews of G. Edward Griffin and by people at political rallies and events on the Internet as well and he is a regular speaker at Presidential candidate and ten term Texas Republican Congressman Dr. Ron Paul MD. -- Jeff Smith 08  (Much Respect) — Preceding comment signed as by Jeff Smith08 (talk· contribs)  actually added by 74.128.181.67 (talk·contribs)
 * Keep G. Edward Griffin's work from 1950s-2008 just in the category of videos is extensive and the following is a sampling:

I would suggest you watch some of them if you love your country and family. He's also author of many books as well and been listed in whose who of America several times. Even some of the old school educational film strips were are still are many Griffin fan's favorites, like the film strip entitled "Inflation" which outlines the true relationship between printing money and the rising of prices which devalues the dollar itself, which we are experiencing today, which was made some time in the 1960s. G. Edward Griffin founded Freedom Force International and the Coalition for Visible Ballots. There is no lack of notability. Where Ed Griffin is concerned we're drowning in it. What do we have to do, write a new wiki to prove the current one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.128.181.67 (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC) — 74.128.181.67 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep He's a documentary film maker and has been exposing corruption since the 1950s with many titles to his credit, of which include many concerning the monetary condition that is ruining our dollar right now.
 * Delete. This article fails verifiability policy because it lacks any third-party reliable sources. There are some citations, but, upon glancing over them, they all seem to come from a group that Griffin himself founded, and thus have no independence &mdash; they basically amount to Griffin talking himself up. This is a vanity article. *** Crotalus *** 04:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I see no information indicating he is notable for anything. He has published a variety of his own lectures in various media,. some of them have something to do with various existing  conspiracy theories and medical frauds, but there isn't anything to show he is actually important with respect to any of them.DGG (talk) 05:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete No reliable sources show any significant coverage (the old afd is a testemant to how sometimes afd's can get out of control with pile on votes). -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 06:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete &mdash; I encountered this fellow in my nomination of another deleted conspiracy theory article, and thought it wasn't notable and didn't have sources. I'm glad other people agree. --Haemo (talk) 08:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Gary King (talk) 09:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep  The article is well-written and informative.Ourmangwynn (talk) 12:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC) — Ourmangwynn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The first isn't a criterion, and the second -- since the article's not backed by anything resembling reliable sources -- is untrue. --Calton | Talk 13:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep He's an author of at least a dozen books, in particular two books ranked pretty highly in specific categories on Amazon.com. His book on the World Without Cancer is ranked number 1 in the category of vitamins in alternative medicine and his book "The Creature from Jekyll Island" is highly-ranked in the banking and monetary categories. Also it is of some note that he's founded various organizations including the Coalition for Visible Ballots which is involved in quite a few ballot integrity campaigns of note like in Ohio. The Cancer Cure Foundation seems to be mentioned around quite a bit by those talking about alternative medicine. I think it's safe to say those calling for this article's deletion do not traffic in conspiracy theories or alternative medicine treatment for cancer. Notability in the field is important and it seems he's noted a lot among various circles. He's produced movies and books which are distributed widely in the community he's part of, it would seem he does meet notability standards. It's possible you won't find him by looking for his name, but look for his organizations, books, or movie and you're likely to find plenty of him. He was featured in America: Freedom to Fascism a notable film about the IRS and Federal Reserve, a subject Griffin discusses frequently. Altogether I think the notability standard is met.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 09:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Given how variable and easily gamed Amazon category rankings are -- especially when you draw the boundaries narrowly enough -- that means very little. Of course, Amazon rankings/listings are completely meaningless to begin with: actual reliable, third-party sources attesting to actual real-world notice and/or impact is what counts. And where's the evidence that "America: Freedom to Fascism" is "a notable film"? Even if so (which I doubt), notability isn't contagious, especially since you don't say the film is ABOUT him. So, no, the notability standard is not even close to being met, overall or otherwise. --Calton | Talk 09:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * America: Freedom to Fascism has its own article on Wikipedia and is certainly notable. Notability doesn't mean the person is notable in the general public, but notable in a field. All things considered he certainly meets that standard. Organizations he founded are mentioned in several reliable third party sources. The Cancer Cure Foundation is mentioned in several places, The Coalition for Visible Ballots is also mentioned because of its involvement in several actions for ballot integrity and counts Bev Harris as a member, who is notable enough to warrant her own article on Wikipedia, and while association doesn't mean notability, the notability of his organizations the fact he's interviewed for a film on the IRS/Federal Reserve means he is regarded as a notable source for that subject, fact his book is highly ranked on Amazon in a similar field certainly just further emphasizes his notability in that area of discussion.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 19:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Read his books and you will know, The Creature from Jekyll Island, World Without Cancer and many more. It is difficult to hear the bad history but it does not mean it is conspiracy theories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LakeOswego (talk • contribs) 22:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Based on the deletion policies of Wikipedia, the article regarding the individual G. Edward Griffin does warrant deletion. The user “Crotalus” stated the article lacks any third-party reliable sources.  The “third party” clause does not fall under the deletion policies of Wikipedia.  The comments made by user “DDG” are personal opinion, and irrelevant to the deletion from Wikipedia.  The article is about an individual, who is involved in social activism, has authored many books, and produced many video documentaries.  Whether or not people think they are notable is a matter of personal opinion.


 * After reading Wikipedia’s deletion policy, I do not see any argument already given that would warrant deletion. In most articles in Wikipedia, there is often a section for criticism.  Critics of G. Edward Griffin’s personal views, books, theories should add to the article to dispute his assertions.  Requesting deletion is not rational.  Critics of Mr. Griffin’s notability should provide arguments for what makes a person and their accomplishments notable enough to be included in Wikipedia.  If they do no present such arguments for criteria, their personal opinions are irrelevant.

Epictatus (talk • contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 01:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)  — Epictatus  (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep Funny how those four 'Delete' entries above were made on the same day within few hours of each other (it's that "Conspiracy theorist" in me -- sorry). You want to remove Griffin based on the above 'delete' comments? You've got to be kidding! None of them give a hint of any familiarity with Griffin's extensive work. Be real. He's an excellent source of well-balanced & objective information on exeptionally wide range of important topics. American-style self-sensorship at its best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.89.98.17 (talk) 17:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)  — 65.89.98.17  (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep - Before siting that G Edward Griffen doesn't pay attention to facts, it would be a very good idea to read his material, including that which he has developed (both in video and book form) on cancer. He does indeed provide much in the way of sourcing. I have personally read two of Griffen's books on Cancer, and found them very useful tools in making important decisions about my family's health. Regarding his politics, and his exposure of fraud, there is plenty of evidence to back up much of what he says, and although I don't agree with everything he stands for, I think he is an important dissenting voice. Steve  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.126.104.68 (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)  — 216.126.104.68 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment -- I don't see any of the opposes addressing the fact that there are no reliable sources independent of the subject which establish notability. I do see a lot of bad faith accusations, misunderstanding of policy, and blanket I like it or it's useful assertions. --Haemo (talk)
 * I addressed it. I pointed out that he was interviewed for America: Freedom to Fascism, the organizations he founded, at least Cancer Cure Foundation and Coalition for Visible Ballots, are mentioned in several places because of their involvement in those specific fields. He's also interviewed in the movie Fiat Empire and has many articles written about him on the John Birch Society website. He's cited several times by them, in particular his book the Creature from Jekyll Island is cited quite a bit and he's noted by them as having the most notable biography of their founder Robert Welch Jr. As I said, he's notable in his area, which I presume is an area none of those calling for this article's deletion are involved in.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 20:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If you provided citations to those interviews and articles about him, and the citations referred to reliable sources, then I would vote keep. However the current article does not cite these sources. JackSchmidt (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Except deletion policy does not say an article lacking sources should be deleted, but that an article lacking sources should have sources. You can't justify deletion on the sole basis that the article doesn't presently have sources if there are plentiful sources to verify the information or the notability of the information.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The point being made is that the exact same argument was made last time, and the article was not improved nor were sources added. The continual claim that "sources exist" without said sources being put forward can't be used more than once with a straight face. --Haemo (talk) 23:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep vote was misplaced on WP:HD by 67.87.23.209. I have no opinion. JackSchmidt (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nominator, DGG, and Haemo: just another non-notable, self-publishing commentator. This article continues to lack reliable sources and verifiability. No offense to those convinced "He has The Truth in his pocket"; but he's gotta be held to the same standards as his counterparts on the left. -- Orange Mike  |  Talk  20:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Someones popularity is not the question nor is their published works. I believe Hitler had some self published works so should we delete all entry's with information about him? People may disagree with Griffin but he has accomplished much that would be worthy of inclusion into Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cvsvideo (talk • contribs) 23:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)  — Cvsvideo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep This man brings to our attention, important and highly relevant material that many have a great interest in hearing. He does not promote quack theories but merely warns us of what is going on in the world that will affect all of us. It would be a great loss for all of us if we were to lose the exposure that a wiki article brings to him and his contributions to society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.164.156.182 (talk) 00:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC) — 189.164.156.182 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep Read "World Without Cancer" and it will become clear why Mr. Griffin publishes his own work, and why my public library will not accept a donated copy. His work will make readers think rather than blindly accept, and there are indeed many who (for financial gain perhaps) would prefer otherwise.  Maybe it's not just a theory ... Mcws (talk) 02:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC) — Mcws (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep I came here looking to see if there was something of interest in Mr. Griffin's work that I have not yet seen. Imagine my disapointment had this article already been deleted.  I have found Mr. Griffin's work informative, enlightening, and entertaining.  Mr. Griffin gave me inspiration to conduct my own research into several subjects that I had previously viewed as dry, boring, and just plain uninteresting.  I would hate to lose being able to point others to Wikipedia for a substantive introduction and a launching pad for deeper delving into Mr. Griffin's work. Let's hear it for self-publishing.  Thank God that we are no longer dependent upon big corporations with hidden agendas to satisfy our desire to have material published. I'm far more suspicious of those who hastily wish to employ Winston's incinerator than of Mr. Griffin's work. -- dicktater   —Preceding comment was added at 03:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)  — dicktater (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep I came here looking to see if there was something of interest in Mr. Griffin's work that I have not yet seen. Imagine my disapointment had this article already been deleted.  I have found Mr. Griffin's work informative, enlightening, and entertaining.  Mr. Griffin gave me inspiration to conduct my own research into several subjects that I had previously viewed as dry, boring, and just plain uninteresting.  I would hate to lose being able to point others to Wikipedia for a substantive introduction and a launching pad for deeper delving into Mr. Griffin's work. Let's hear it for self-publishing.  Thank God that we are no longer dependent upon big corporations with hidden agendas to satisfy our desire to have material published. I'm far more suspicious of those who hastily wish to employ Winston's incinerator than of Mr. Griffin's work. -- dicktater   —Preceding comment was added at 03:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I have come to respect Wikipedia as a viable source of information on almost any subject. Any sensible user knows that any media such as Wikipedia, where any one can submit or edit articles may not always be reliable. Removing the article about Griffin has no useful purpose except the censoring of information which many users may seek. Griffin is a writer and producer of many works. These works command decent prices even years after publication on sites such as Amazon and eBay. Check me on this. If he were an insignificant writer, certainly his works would not be in demand and if available at all, would be sold for pennies. Wikipedia needs to have this information available if they are to be considered a viable objective source of information. Griffin is controversial as well as most, if not all other great men. Just because many don't like him or his works is not a reason to deny the honest inquirer of the information. And if the skeptics would just  read his works instead of babbling about deletion, they may just learn some of the many vital truths Mr. Griffin brings out. He is just trying to help our great Nation to not destroy itself. —Preceding comment was added at 04:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC) DuaneCWilson — DuanceCWilson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep I like Wikipedia and I think that expunging this information is a conspiracy. G. Edward Griffin is a man of integrity and courage. I have met him and read some of his books and viewed his videos. Those who would consider voting one way or the other should make themselves available to his body of work. I think you may be very impressed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesclark830 (talk • contribs) 06:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)  — Jamesclark830  (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep As independent source which establishes notability, a reference to "Who's Who in America" should be included. I verified that the volumes from 1991 to 1994 contain an entry about G. Edward Griffin. The volume from 1991 was the earliest I had access to. I posted the information provided in "Who's Who in America 1994" on my talk page.
 * Another evidence for "real-world notability" is Congressman Ron Paul's comment on Griffin's book "The Creature from Jekyll Island — A Second Look at the Federal Reserve":
 * A superb analysis. Be prepared for one heck of a journey through time and mind.
 * I cannot judge whether this information is reliable or not, since I found it on the cover of Griffin's book, but given the comment was authentic, it would not only constitute an acknowledgment by an independent source, but also an approval of the book's contents by a person who serves the congress as expert on monetary issues. Is it possible to reference such comments from book covers? FeelFreeToBe (talk) 07:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC) — FeelFreeToBe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete. When I read this nomination and the article I was sure that somewhere in there must be a notable subject. One or two contributors above have suggested that reliable sources existed, and I thought that a Google search must reveal at least one objective piece from an independent source to go along with the multitude of walled garden references between conspiracy sites. Sadly, after 15 pages of Google hits the references to Griffin started to run out and there were still no independent source. None of the keep contributions above have produced evidence to assert that the article passes WP:BIO, nor have the promised references appeared in the article itself. It's a shame because I think he's an interesting-sounding subject. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  09:57, 23 February 2008 (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.