Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G. Edward Griffin (4th 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   no consensus. After reviewing the two weeks of an AFD, as well as three previous AFDs, I find that there is still no consensus for the removal of this article. The sources provided tend to give weight to the article subject's notability WRT the general notability guidelines. I will not be able to definitively say keep or delete in this instance, but after review, the argument for deletion is less significant that inclusion. Nakon 05:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

G. Edward Griffin
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

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.

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 Wikipedia 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)
 * I'll add that at the time of this posting, I still haven't seen sources provided that establish notability for Griffin specifically and what exactly is notable from reliable sources. That can change as I've stated, but I've only seen people claiming WP:GNG but not demonstrating what actually is notable. I'm not seeing anything stand out yet, so it looks like a clear delete without that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep for the 4th and 5th, then delete on 6th, restore, then delete again on the 7th 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)
 * Primary sources cannot establish notability. Statements made by Griffin in an interview are not secondary RS references. SPECIFICO  talk  00:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * How is an interview not a secondary source that determines notability? Can you point me to that Wikipedia rule. An interview is under editorial control where a primary document is not. The interviewer chooses notable people to interview. The interviewer chooses the questions. They choose how much to air or to print. How is that not editorial control? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:06, 13 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 &#9775;  Consult  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.
 * www.naturalnews.com/023345.html] Natural News - (2,023 US Alexa)
 * goldsilver.com/news/g-edward-griffin-coming-replacement-for-the-dollar-secrets-of-the-banking-system-gold-and-silver/] 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.
 * www.caseyresearch.com/cdd/g-edward-griffin-saving-us-totalitarianism], Casey Research - (35,748 US Alexa)
 * www.thedailybell.com/exclusive-interviews/34836/Anthony-Wile-G-Edward-Griffin-on-Globalism-Collectivism-and-Right-Principles/], The Daily Bell - (49,221 US Alexa)
 * www.financialsense.com/financial-sense-newshour/g-edward-griffin/dark-side-federal-reserve] 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.
 * www.corbettreport.com/interview-794-g-edward-griffin-unmasks-the-creature-from-jekyll-island/] Corbett Report - (88,282 US Alexa)
 * www.cchr.org.au/video/157-psychiatry-a-politics-with-g-edward-griffin] www.cchr.org.au/video/157-psychiatry-a-politics-with-g-edward-griffin]    www.globaldeflationnews.com/twenty-years-later-g-edward-griffin-is-still-taking-on-the-creature-from-jekyll-island/] www.corbettreport.com/interview-794-g-edward-griffin-unmasks-the-creature-from-jekyll-island/] www.theamericanview.com/exclusive-interview-g-edward-griffin/] www.caseyresearch.com/cdd/g-edward-griffin-saving-us-totalitarianism] www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2012/09/13/the-federal-reserve-is-a-cartel-g-edward-griffin/] goldsilver.com/news/g-edward-griffin-coming-replacement-for-the-dollar-secrets-of-the-banking-system-gold-and-silver/]  rt.com/shows/capital-account/edward-griffin-federal-reserve/] www.geoengineeringwatch.org/g-edward-griffin-talks-candidly-about-chemtrailssag/]  www.rechargebiomedical.com/tag/g-edward-griffin/] 2012.freedomfest.com/new-speakers/] conservativeread.com/how-are-socialism-communism-and-fascism-all-the-same/] Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  03:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This looks like a bit sloppy the way this is currently presented considering most of these are not establishing notability of Griffin, but rather his book. A good many of these you already know from the article's talk page are considered a joke and are never really considered reliable (i.e. Natural News), so I find it funny you are padding your list with such sources even. Others from more legitimate sites are pretty unclear. What specific sources are you suggesting establish notability and what exactly is notable? At the very least, if this AFD can be used to establish what actually is notable about Griffin, if anything, that should hopefully help at the article if it remains. If he really is notable, it shouldn't be difficult to list the strongest sources that clearly establish notability. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Considered a joke by whom? The FDA? Monsanto?  The Federal Reserve?  Griffin passes per WP:GNG so I'm not too concerned.  I realize he's not notoriously famous as is Monsanto which resulted in the need for a separate article just for their lawsuits.  Bravo to you for creating Monsanto_legal_cases.  Hope you aren't plagued by some of their class action plaintiffs.  Ugh.  If you need help, I'd be happy to collaborate.  The article needs some serious tweaking - maybe follow some of the suggestions you've made for Griffin - get some of the WEIGHT off, fix fluff and NPOV issues, etc.  Hope you're not having to cite primary sources cause that will shave the article down considerably.  It might even do better as a list rather than an article. SMirC-wink.svg Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  23:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * By RSN countless times, and there's no need for the snark. You currently aren't demonstrating GNG in your post. Consensus is assessed by evidence not by simply yes or no votes, so that's why I was asking for what you considered specifically established notability for Griffin specifically rather than sort through the list of tangential or generally considered reliable sources. That's all. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Show me the diffs to substantiate your claims. Each RSN refers to the use of a RS as it applies to a particular statement made in a specific passage.  It is not a blanket decision for the source.  See WP:RSN,  and .  Hope that helps.  Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  22:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You've already been made aware that it's generally considered a junk source at RSN, and I'm sure it's been brought up to you at the article talk page multiple times. If you're not familiar with its general unreliability due to lack of fact checking and pushing fringe theories, best ask at WP:FTN. Whenever it comes up as a source, it typically is rejected by the community due to being such a fringe source.
 * To get back to the actual topic at hand though, out of what you consider the best sources, what are they and what specifically is notable? You still haven't answered that. I'm still not seeing anything in what you presented that would establish consensus for notability or things to actually focus the article on if Griffin himself is truly notable. If notability truly is clear, you should have no problem just listing a few clear cases that establish notability and lead to the article being kept. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: Anyone tempted tot ake this laundry list of purported "sources" at face value should check the article talk page. They fall into three categories: passing mentions (namechecks only); unreliable sources (e.g. chemtrail conspiracy site); reliable sources discussing in the main only one of his books, Creature from Jekyll Island, one of the few that is not self-published. Guy (Help!) 11:15, 15 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 Wikipedia. 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)
 * Is there a problem with "... is an American author, lecturer, and filmmaker." I am not sure what you are saying. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Carrite is referring to the RfC that was initiated a short time ago which changed the offending lead sentence to what it is now. It was not an easy task to accomplish.  Unfortunately, the rest of the lead is still problematic because of its defamatory nature and questionable sources.  I have tried repeatedly to correct the problems, but get reverted every time.  These issues need to be resolved, but here we are now arguing over a notable author's notability.  It's more of the same SQS in an effort to prevent this article from being improved and promoted to GA.  Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  18:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's what Carrite means by activist editors standing down. Wikipedia does not have a problem with describing an advocate of chemtrails, the New World Order conspiracy theory, the Big Pharma conspiracy, 9/11 "Truth", AIDS denialism and many other crank ideas, as being an advocate of such ideas. You are well aware that everything he promotes if fringe and much of it is patent nonsense. You are well aware of the mainstream consensus on the ideas he promotes. Thus, you work tirelessly to remove the ideas he promotes form the lede, in order that it does not establish the context of his fringe advocacy. In this, you have failed to persuade, consistently, over many months. Griffin is a proponent of conspiracy theories and fringe nonsense. Most of it is self-published and entirely ignored by reliable independent sources. I'm still waiting for a single reliable independent biographical source to be introduced. has been extensively discussed in reliable sources, with numerous profiles that establish biographical details. I cannot find a single reliable independent source that substantiates any of the biographical data for Griffin - the only bio data that exists on any sites even close to reliable, is self-sourced PR resumes that are not independent at all. You might like to help with that some time. Guy (Help!) 11:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Those "questionable sources" are the only reliable sources that impart him with Notability. If we remove the sources that use "fringe" or "conspiracy" we have nothing, and his entry has to be deleted. He is not known for anything else. It has been almost 35 years since the discovery of the AIDS virus and 45 years since laetrile was disproved. If you are still clinging to those beliefs you are "fringe". If you can't discard the old ones, at least get some new ones. www.verifiedfacts.org/ Here is a random conspiracy generator online] --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per Carrite. [Comment: I cannot help but think that the concern about Griffin's bio by editors who are regular defenders of GMO is not divorced from the fact that Griffin implicates Monsanto in nefarious activity in one of his recent documentaries.]   petrarchan47  t  c   17:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Was that from the random conspiracy generator? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Far from random, but I can see how it would appear that way. One might find it interesting to note how many critics of biotech end up at this noticeboard.   petrarchan47  t  c   19:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - Sufficient sources provided by others lay the matter to rest. Those of us who truly lack notability must be careful that we judge another's notability absent bias or agenda. Otherwise it fast becomes a case of placing so high a value on media attention that the term 'fringe' becomes defined by those most adept at marketing their definition. Scrutinized in this way, Patrick Henry would not have been 'notable' or worthy of a Wikipedia Article. Agree or disagree, fringe or mainstream, ideas printed, spoken and recognized by others as valid should be placed before the people for opportunity to formulate their own determinations of value. Cloudrising565 (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * 'Strong Keep WP:GNG is the relevant test for whether someone should have a WP entry. The fact that Griffin's on the fringe doesn't mean he's not notable. Per Collect's statement, he is clearly notable. Steeletrap (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - As far as The Creature from Jekyll Island is concerned, I note that it has been praised by Forbes magazine contributors, cited as a factual source by an economics textbook published by Springer on the history of the Fed , and cited as a reference by an academic journal published by Wiley . Griffin's expertise on the Federal Reserve satisfies notability criteria per WP:AUTHOR. - A1candidate  00:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Forbes blog contributors, not Forbes contributors. I haven't fact-checked the rest of your statement; however, at best, it justifies an article on the book, not the author.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 05:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Forbes blog contributors are Forbes contributors, just not Forbes print contributors. They only appear in the online version, just as it is in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. Blog is an online format, the word "blog" does not denote anything about reliability. That Forbes chose this writer to blog under their masthead is what makes him a reliable source. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The Forbes blogger who commented on Jekyll Island is an investment fund manager with opinions about various topics related to finance. He is not a notable historian, economist, journalist, or fund manager and this blog piece is not RS for this article.   SPECIFICO  talk  00:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The Forbes blogger, Nathan Lewis, wrote the article about Greenspan wanting to end the Fed, and also commented about Griffin's book. Nathan Lewis is an author-economist-macro strategist, and writer of opinion pieces that have appeared in the Financial Times, Asian Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones Newswires, Worth, Daily Yomiuri, Asia Times, Pravda, Huffington Post, and numerous other print and online publications. I think we can safely say he is a reputable professional in the relative fields.  I seriously doubt Forbes would accept anything less. . (add original time for post - 23:00, March 12, 2015‎) and now my sig - --Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  21:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You make a good case for an article about the book. Where are the sources about its author? They have not been presented yet. Guy (Help!) 11:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Instead of repeatedly stating your opinion that the blog is RS, please respond to the reasons I presented for rejecting that source. Forbes carries many non-notable opinionated bloggers. The burden is on you for inclusion and if you can demonstrate that this blog is RS as to the history of the Federal Reserve, etc. it would go a long way to establishing Mr. Griffin's notability.   SPECIFICO  talk  21:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "Forbes carries many non-notable opinionated bloggers" you should note that NOT having a Wikipedia article does not make you non-notable. The quote "conspiratorial, amateurish, and suspect" is by Edward Flaherty, who is also not notable by the Forbes standard that is being promulgated. He is quoted in the article with no countervailing opinion from Forbes.


 * Weak Delete. The accurate (I mean, accurately cited, not accurate in fact) so far placed in the article which does not violate WP:FRINGE justifies WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR.  The book appears to meet WP:BK, and if material in the present article belongs in an article about the book, one could make a case for renaming this article to The Creature from Jekyll Island, and clearing out statements not about the book.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 05:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Problem with doing that, Arthur, is the fact he has authorized several popular books, and there are other aspects of his life that are interesting and belong in the article as biographical content. Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  13:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Appears to meet notability guidelines. Nomination appears to stem from content issues which are better dealt with on the page itself. Artw (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not exactly "content issues", unless you mean that the content which indicates notability is without reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I refer you to the discussions here, and here which have some of the more vocal delete proponents discussing content issues on the page. As for the sources not being sufficient to meet WP:GNG I don't really buy them and the longer they get the more desperate they seem, sorry. Artw (talk) 00:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep The works of G. Edward Griffin are powerful inspiration in the perennial fight for liberty and freedom of choice. By deleting the article on Mr. Griffin, Wikipedia would become an accessory to the burgeoning forces of global tyranny that seek to enslave the world under perpetual debt.  This must not be allowed to happen! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lux Logos (talk • contribs) 03:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * <small class="afdnewuser-notice"> has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. The sources available here just aren't sufficient to support this fringe BLP, despite being numerous and superficially acceptable. As Guy says above, there is essentially no coverage in reliable sources that is about Griffin himself. The book does seem to be notable enough to support an article with this title as a redirect (the opposite of the current situation). In the interest of full disclosure, I think the existence of this article has been a clear net negative for the project. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * (Not that my puny !vote has much chance of slaking the hurricane thus far...) Rename to The Creature from Jekyll Island - This is a fairly unusual case in which the book is far more notable than its author. (I mean, come on: who on the internet has not heard of that thing?)<b style="font-family:georgia; font-size:11pt; color:#BFA3A3"> Pax</b> 08:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep – the very fact that so much editing and discussion and edit-warring has occurred supports the notability of this topic. Is the solution to ignore his influence (minor and fringy as it is) by sweeping the article under the rug? No. We must write about him, following the 5P, which says "strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is on living persons." – S. Rich (talk) 15:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - I've been following the edits to this article for a few years with fascination (I guess you would call it lurking), but I couldn't bring myself to get involved probably because tensions run so high. Regarding the sources, it's true that the subject is definitely WP:FRINGE by Wikipedia standards but the preponderance of reliable sources are quite critical of him, giving him an interesting case of notability. Do we delete the article because the preponderance of independent secondary sources only mention him in passing but are critical of this BLP or do we keep it and just document what they say? Personally, I favor simply reflecting what they say about him and being honest with the reader. Oddexit (talk) 20:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, they are certainly critical of his work, but only mention him in passing. Do you know of a reliable independent biographical source? Guy (Help!) 11:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * comment: There are sources critical of his work no doubt, as well they should be, but far more sources are not because his particular style of writing sets him apart from what some in mainstream consider to be a "conspiracy theorist". For example, Rice University lists his book Creature on their list of suggested reading for one of their classes on finances.  Several financial and alternative websites (some of which are fact checked or somehow regulated) have also written articles about him.  A separate paragraph in a Forbes article is hardly passing mention as it relates to article content.  Casey Research considers him to be among the Best of the Best in their presentation, Navigating The Politicized Economy www.caseyresearch.com/cm/2012-fall-summit-cd-set].  He has been interviewed numerous times on audio/video streaming sites, but none of those sources have been cited.   He lectures around the world.  I think many critics of Griffin's work have picked a few passages from his books, and have taken them out of context in an effort to sensationalize them for ratings, most of which has politically bias because of Griffin's views on freedom vs collectivism. Perhaps the latter explains part of the reason we see only passing mention in critical analyses of him and his books.  Regardless of what perspective one chooses to see him, as editors we can only hope that all perspectives are being considered when writing his BLP, and that we are not inadvertently injecting our own POV when determining his notability. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D"><span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  14:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You haven't responded to Guy's question here. What reliable sources talk about Griffin?  There might be some, but none have yet been produced.  (For what it's worth, my views on "freedom vs collectivism" resemble Griffin's.  As far as I can tell, none of my other views resemble Griffin's.)  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I responded to his question before he asked it, Arthur - see the links above. Introductions or guest biographies would fall under the heading of independent biographical material so I've gathered a few more for your reading/listening/viewing pleasure: The Scott Horton Show has introduced and interviewed Griffin several times. scotthorton.org/interviews/2004/04/17/april-17-2004-g-edward-griffin/]; Peter Schiff interviewed him, and gave a short bio, www.schiffradio.com/september-2011/].  Here is another interview with a brief bio (#93) itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/american-monetary-association/id404990055?mt=2]. Another abbreviated bio, www.cph-books.com/g-edward-griffin.html]; www.filmpressplus.com/wp-content/uploads/dl_docs/AFFF-PressNotes.pdf] Page 10;  guest biography; Sidebar note, you might also want to take a look at this Syllabus by the late Brian Stross professor, Dept. of Anthropology, UT - who recommended one of Griffin's books and several websites that have been dismissed as not reliable, . Happy editing!  <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D"><span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  23:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Mathematically 10 facts from 10 sources are the same as 10 facts from 1 source. The argument is that this biography is made from facts cobbled together from multiple sources, and detractors are demanding that we have to have all the facts come from one in-depth source. There is no rule in Wikipedia that demands this, actually just the opposite, it demands multiple reliable sources to achieve notability. A single in-depth interview on the front page of the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal would not satisfy WP:notability if that is all that existed. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * , in answer to your question about reliable independent biographical sources, I often use LexisNexis, JSTOR, Worldcat, and other common databases to search for subject notability and information. It saves time and effort in "googling" or going to the library. I typed the name "G. Edward Griffin" in LexisNexis just now and got 116 hits. The database then usefully broke down the hits into categories. There were 62 newspaper articles, 35 newswire statements, 9 from the trade press, 7 from web-based publications, 5 from other technical publications, 2 magazine articles, and an assortment of other "publications" like blogs that probably don't meet Wikipedia's sourcing criteria. In the case of JSTOR, two peer-reviewed journal articles discussed his books. In both databases, I would have to sit down and spend hours reading through all of these to answer your question thoroughly. That said, I can understand and his frustration. There were several times where I spent literally days researching something carefully, agonizing over the wording, and trying to make them policy compliant before editing the articles only to see my hard work quickly deleted with dismissive tags in the subject headers and without even the slightest discussion on the talk pages before action. This is the nature of Wikipedia, unfortunately. That's why it's not worth getting too invested in your hard work here. Wikipedia is just supposed to be a friendly, collaborative hobby, although it's still disappointing to experience when you try to go by the book and be constructive. C'est la vie. Oddexit (talk) 09:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 04:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC) Fifteen keeps, there was also a lot of discussion and nothing after your relisting, User:Coffee this wanted closing as clear keep not relisting Govindaharihari (talk) 02:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As per the notice at the top of this page, we don't determine this by vote counting, but by WP:CONSENSUS. The means someone needs to establish what actually is notable about the subject with reliable sources. There's a lot of people just saying Griffin appears to meet general notability without specifying clearly how, which essentially can just become like saying nothing at all when determining consensus. Ideally if consensus can be reached of if some things are notable about Griffin, that would help structure the article as well, so there really needs to be consensus here rather than just voting. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree. If there is any doubt about Griffin's notability, a quick review of WP:AUTHOR No. 3, should eliminate it - (my bold) The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. As other editors have noted above, he easily fits the requirements as the author of two well-known works - The Creature From Jekyll Island and World Without Cancer. At the very least, it is dismissive of the long-standing community consensus which elected to KEEP this article in 3 prior AfD requests. The WSJ, Forbes, book reviews by Michael J. Ross, recommended reading list for several universities courses, NPR, RT, Financial Sense, Corbett Report (not the comedy), in the keynote address of Australian Attorney General, Amazon Best Seller, Money & Monetary www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Books-Money-Monetary-Policy/zgbs/books/2598], www.anticancerinfo.co.uk/cancer_prevention.html], www.texasinsider.org/kinky-friedman-g-edward-griffin-and-michael-badnairk-headline/], www.jasonhartman.com/cw-291-the-economic-and-political-landscape-with-g-edward-griffin/].
 * Keep For people who write books, the notability usually depends on the amount of notice given the books. This is similar  in all creative fields. For example, works discussing Rodin's sculpture is evidence that he is notable as a sculptor.  He meets WP:AUTHOR as well as the GNG.  DGG ( talk ) 23:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Quite simply, I can't fathom the argument for deletion. So we have here someone who's noted, in multiple reliable sources, for promoting various conspiracy theories or other fringe theories; how could that be argued not to be notable? That nobody considers the theories legitimate is besides the point; considerable effort has been expended in the literature towards arguing for their illegitimacy. This is, after all, an article about the person, not the theories. Accordingly, the notability of the theories is moot. 70.24.4.51 (talk) 01:22, 23 March 2015 (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.