Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Caton


 * 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   speedy keep. Nom withdrawn, no votes to delete. (non-admin closure) Pcap ping  01:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Greg Caton

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  AfD statistics)

None of the sources except the book review look reliable (and that one doesn't mention Caton, just the business). The rest are websites of private businesses. I wasn't able to turn anything reliable up after a search. Given the serious claims maybe I should have straight speedied this but I'm checking here to make sure no one else can produce anything reliable first. delldot  &nabla;.  23:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The FDA source (see page 26), while primary, seems to confirm that this is both WP:V and WP:N. There are plenty of sources on Google news, e.g. this AP article on an NBC affiliate website. Pburka (talk) 00:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article definitely needs to be edited to remove references to potentially self-interested claims from competitors and provide more reliable sources, but such sources do appear to exist. For example:, , . Note that some of this coverage is unrelated to his criminal activity, so his notability is not based solely on that. --RL0919 (talk) 05:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Article reflects a figure of consistent and current interest. Background in the article, although incomplete, merits further development.  Mr. Caton appears to be a person whose activities exemplify typical "anti-establishment, anti-government" activities in the alternative health field.Jettparmer (talk) 15:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * D'oh, nom withdrawn after seeing the massive pile of sources Pburka turned up--not sure how I missed those in my own search. Sorry all.  But yeah, the claims in the article do need to be better ref'd.   delldot   &nabla;.  22:59, 19 December 2009 (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.