Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven M. Greer

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. As a side note, I'd like to point out that deleting an article about a man who is at best a kook, at worst a conman is not to delete the article but rather make sure that the man is portrayed in fair light. This includes both fair praise and fair criticism and there appears to be enough of both to construct a balanced article here.. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steven M. Greer

Steven M. Greer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

There is no indication of the subject's notability, and the article seems to be blatant advertising to promote the subjects commercial activities, including his $995 "training sessions" [1] Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm tempted to suggest BLP1E applies, but the subject might not agree with me, so I'll stick with the basics. This person is not
  verifiability policy. The sources that are present are mainly self-published and/or faith-based (to whatever extent). The archived OMNI piece is the best source provided, but even that provides essentially no biographical information. There really is very little salvageable material in the article as written. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - over 50 Google Books hits for "Stephen Greer UFO" suggest he's notable in his field, however kooky that field may be. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Greer is a conman or deluded, and his fans have been making trouble on the page. Fifty hits doesn't prove notability, just verbosity. Maybe it should be deleted and redirected to
  Disclosure Project, since that is Greer's most notable project and involves some notable but confused individuals (including an Apollo astronaut). 131.215.64.195 (talk) 23:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • IMO, we don't exclude articles on conmen or deluded individuals from Wikipedia; nor do we delete articles because someone's fans are making trouble. Fifty printed books reference the guy; that sounds like some level of importance to me. It feels like you are making deletion arguments based on your opinion of the subject individual and what he does, which isn't what we should be doing here. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could be right. But I don't see any publishers there that look reputable. Rather it all seems to be publishers of fringe stuff with doubtful standards. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 01:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Plvekamp (talk) 01:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Plvekamp (talk) 01:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, the one non-trivial reference is the book that Amazon says is published by "Crossing point Inc" This company does not have a website and is not listed in Writer's Market (the 2006 edition). Since this publisher then either does not exist or is a tiny operation (a self-publisher?) this is not a reliable source for a BLP on a fringe topic. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, I'd also support a redirect to
    Disclosure Project. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• merge to
  Disclosure Project meet WP:N to another day. Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong Delete. His books and their publishers are extremely iffy, and in any case his work is not notable per
  WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 05:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as per Sheffield Steel and Tim Vickers. Not notable. 9 redirect pages? Is that usual?
  talk) 05:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep As mentioned above Greer has backing of some very credible persons(Apollo astronaut or John Callahan, Division Chief of the Accidents and Investigations Branch of the FAA in Washington DC). He authored also several books which are available on Amazon.com. The users who initiated this deletion Malcolm Schosha (talk) and 131.215.64.195 (talk) have never contributed anything noteworthy to this page. They instead continuously removed content they called "nonsense", BS and were unwilling to discuss their views further in the talk sections. As a final argument in a non-existent debate they've marked the page for deletion. These are not the constructive principles Wikipedia is based upon. -- I-netfreedOm (talk) 07:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I hope you don't intend removing the AfD tag again if you are interested in keeping to Wikipedia guidelines. It clearly states you should not remove it. And this discussion should be about the issues, not used for an attack on other editors.
    talk) 08:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Comment Wikipedia also states that no vulgar language should be used in discussions. Citing such quotes from the mentioned users are by no means "personal attacks". This is part of the problem. If this offends you it is because on the one hand you demand complete compliance to the policies on the other hand you are silent about the mentioned violations. Why are you posing as unbiased if you've opted for deletion? I-netfreedOm (talk) 12:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment That's a further attack, this time on me. I note that you are an SPA, which is interesting.
        talk) 08:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
        ]

• Delete. Subject has given talks and maintains a website opn fringe theories. He also has written books on the subject, but these do not seem to be notable outside of a very small circle of fellow enthusiasts. Unless something more substantial comes up, does not meet notability standards. --Crusio (talk) 13:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. Yes, he is a proponent of fringe conspiracy theories but he appears to be notable since there is sufficient coverage of him by reliable sources. GoogleNews gives 70 hits[2] for "Steven Greer" ufo. Most of them contain nontrivial coverage of Greer personally and his activities and often provide some brief biographical info as well (e.g. references to him as a former emergency room physician). GoogleBooks gives 49 hits[3] for the same search. I think this does satisfy
  WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep In addition to non-trivial sources noted above, one finds numerous citations of public lectures, seminars and distinguished speaker engagements in the U.S., Canada and abroad. He is a regular guest on respected radio programs as well. IMO, one must be a bit lenient in ascribing notability for an admittedly "fringe" subject matter, as that somewhat prejudical label itself presupposes lack of credibility, and thus unnecessarily weights against potentially quite valid research and discourse. Until arenas of discussion are accepted into the mainstream, they obviously will be accepted by fewer numbers than mainstream subjects, but the label of "fringe" studies is not a either/or, black or white idea. There's a continuum—a spectrum, if you will—of controversial studies about. Disagreement with the core or premise of said subject matter does not preclude allowing for serious discourse and subsequent acknowledgment from within (and without) the related field of study. One of the main points of contention here, it seems, is Greer's work on behalf of so-called "free energy" device development efforts. Critics cry "impossible", and throw him in the fringe basket, but this whole issue is tied to the subject of ET visitation, a subject that is becoming increasingly less "fringe" (Hon. Paul Hellyer of Canada, the Vatican, Sen. Kucinich), and the evidence is pointing ever so strongly that ETs' presence is real. That immediately brings forth the question of the technologies used for their inter-stellar travel to reach us, which would obviously defy "known" laws of physics, and certainly point to the use of anti-gravity, free-energy and other devices that have been heretofore labeled "impossible", and "fringe" ideas. Wikidpedia needs to nudge its least-common-denominator standards a bit, and give some credence to the serious discourse around issues that might make the scientifically-intransigent a bit too uncomfortable. There's room here in Wikipedia for both the tried-and-true AND the truly-trying.Dancingeyes (talk) 20:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the subject is notable, it would be more helpful to substantiate that in the article than to write claims about it here. So please add evidence of notability to the article. So far nothing has changed there, not even the promotion for his commercial activities. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely, my belief that the article should be deleted is based on looking at the article and assessing the quality of its sources. If you improve the article, then I may change my mind. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur completely. Notability has nothing to do with whether somebody is right or wrong about something. The proponents of two mutually exclusive hypotheses can both be notable, even though at least one of them must be wrong. This article just does not establish notability, even among fellow travelers. --Crusio (talk) 23:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that clarification., Crusio. That has been one of the more unbiased and informative comments I've read so far, and I appreciate your sense of fairness. I'll certainly encourage the inclusion (and contribute, where I feel qualified to do so) these cited-source additions to the article. Dancingeyes (talk) 13:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Greer has gathered over 500 Witnesses from covert projects in the government. Surely something is going on here. (Edit: flyboyqw 5 june 08 - On the notable subject: from the wiki notable page, Criteria 6. "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them." I suppose a "lifelong member of the Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Medical Society" qualifies. Link is in the main wiki page. There. Happy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyboyqw (talk • contribs) 11:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whether "something is going on here" or not is completely besides the point. AfD is to establish

notability not The Truth. --Crusio (talk) 12:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

PS: the preceding comment is the only edit of Flyboyqw. --Crusio (talk) 12:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, we have a new SPA

talk) 12:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Would someone please explain what "SPA" means? Thanks. Dancingeyes (talk) 14:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SPA=Single Purpose Account (see

meatpuppets. Hope this helps. --Crusio (talk) 15:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks. This does indeed help. Much appreciated. — Dancingeyes (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me suggest that "500 Witnesses from covert projects in the government" supports the notability of the

Disclosure Project far more than it does this biography. Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I did indeed create a new account, but not just for that edit above. I realize that this is not common practice but I am not going to be an active or permanent sockpuppet. This topic is so sensitive (ridicule, even worse at times) that I decided to create a new account with a new IP for security reasons. Don't forget that a SPA not only has negative aspects (abuse) but also positive as it is effective at protecting one's privacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyboyqw (talk • contribs) 07:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't understand how people can be so ignorant. Even with the latest development regarding ET life, the vatican declaration, witnesses by the 10s of thousands, coming from the intelligence community, the military, NASA, Pilots, we are still debating the ET presence. Here, we are not debating if we should delete the entry for Dr. Steven Greer. We are back at debating if ET presence is a reality. With the overwhelming evidence presented to me in the last 2 years, I can now convinced we have been visited, many times too. The work Steven Greer has accomplished in the last 20 some years is of critical importance and this entry should be updated and maintained. Another point I would like to make is that, the haters are often found to come here to delete the material. This is getting very irritating. That's the most annoying aspect of Wiki. People like myself and other people that have been in contact with Steven should be in a position to put relevant information in here. Basically, if you don't know what the heck you are writting about, stop writting and stop deleting the entries or the important text pieces. It should also be noted that Steven is a well known speakers in various radio shows and conferences, including but not limited to the IIIHS, Coast to Coast AM, The World Puja Network and various other shows.

Comment Now, what else do you need to keep this article going? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard.Lalancette (talk • contribs)

Comment And another SPA.... Makes one almost willing to believe that there really IS a conspiracy out there.... PLEASE, take a few minutes to read the discussion above and the linked policies. It does not matter at all for this AfD whether Greer is right or wrong. For all I care he could be a proponent of a flat Earth. What IS important is that we establish whether or not he is

independent and verifiable sources. --Crusio (talk) 23:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment The number of sources listed is satisfying now? Or do we want more? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard.Lalancette (talk • contribs) 00:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I agree completely with Crusio that the issue here is nothing to do with whether the subject's theories are right or wrong , but with whether the necessary sources exist to establish notability. Nsk92 and others established above that they do exist.
  Phil Bridger (talk) 23:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Question Perhaps to avoid a merge, there would need to be some evidence that either Orion or AERO has any importance whatsoever. Otherwise he';s notable for running the Disclosure Project only and has the same unfortunate significance that it does. DGG (talk) 00:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The Orion Project has collected 342 000$ from donations so far, which is definitively of great importance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard.Lalancette (talk • contribs) 01:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If only to show how gullible people are. Sorry, but it had to be said. This article needs more input from the skeptical community. Plvekamp (talk) 02:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• rather, I would say that for a topic which supposedly millions of people believe to be real, that raising only that sum of money is an excellent indication of lack of notability for the project. DGG (talk) 04:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On the contrary, I believe that people are waking up to a new understanding of our true nature. Science might not be able to mesure everything at the moment, just like science couldn't see or mesure ultra-violet or infrared in the past. But time will come where we can measure these things in a distant future. Your reality is based on your understanding of the current Physics. Can I pretends I understand everything that there is? Can we pretend we understand everything there is? If so, then we fall in the same traps as our ancestors. As long as it can't be measure, it's stupid and unacceptable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard.Lalancette (talk • contribs) 12:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The addition of random UFO sources such as the self-published Leopizzi Harris, Paola, Exopolitics: How Does One Speak to a Ball of Light? or the self-published Kennedy, Judy, Beyond the Rainbow: Renewing the Cosmic Connection that are not cited in the article does nothing to establish notability. We need
  reliable sources that discuss Greer, not the Disclosure Project, not a passing reference to Greer in a discussion on UFOs in general - we need reliable sources that discuss Greer in particular as their main subject. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment I would like to give a few valid scientific points to this "debate". Let's analyze the definitions of "notability" (see:
  WP:BIO) and see if these can be applied to our subject. The basic criteria of notability: "..he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" which is applicable because many main stream media organizations reported on him and on his "Disclosure Project": see search term ""steven greer" disclosure" on GoogleNews. We can thus conclude that he is "presumed to be notable". We now have to prove that he is "generally notable". Quote: "A person is a "Creative professional" (for example quote:"...,authors") if they meet the following standard.... "The person's work either....(c) has won significant critical attention.." Dr. Greer's most widely publicized/reported project "Disclosure Project" (which is an immaterial work/product) indisputably satisfies this premise and thus enables us to label the subject as "Creative professional". We then successfully proved "general notability". Since the subject has met the prerequisites of both basic and general notability we have concluded the proof of Steven Greer's notability. I-netfreedOm (talk) 20:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment Well said. I totally agree. Flyboyqw (talk) 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment I'm not completely sure, but I think I detect a foot odor here... Just a suspicion. Plvekamp (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm suspicious enough to tag him as an SSP. Pete.Hurd (talk) 17:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These comments are out of line and off-topic. Please stick to the issue of notability, as has been so duly pointed out to me recently. — Dancingeyes (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your are wrong this time, Watson. By the way your accusations show that my reasoning is correct and instead of bringing some arguments against my point you attack the messenger. I-netfreedOm (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Tally: Can some-one please keep a count of what of the votes above are for delete/merge and what are four keep? A second count, separating out the single-purpose Greer advocates, also seems relevant. At the moment, I count 8 votes for delete and between 3 and 5 votes for keep, depending how you count. I realize Wikipedia isn't a democracy. Also: re. Greer's other projects: that they have raised money doesn't make them notable. I figure that the Disclosure Project is sadly notable, but is there any _substantial_ difference in goals or methods between Greer's three groups? There isn't any reason for three facets of the same thing to merit more article space. Also: if precedence means anything, I just browsed the history of
  hydrino theory page, since he wasn't notable enough without it. 131.215.64.195 (talk) 17:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment I would suggest that we also separate out the biased Greer opponents. With this I can count 4 keeps and 3 deletes. I-netfreedOm (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Votes will not be tallied. This is a discussion, not a poll. Votes are not simply tallied by the admin who will close this AfD, rather the debate will be weighed by the discussion here with reference to wikipedia policies and guidelines. You may wish to consult
  Wikipedia:VOTE if you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia's procedures. Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete and merge to
  Disclosure Project to reflect this. I may check back on this AfD before it is done, but I do enjoy my retirement. Michaelbusch (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment Could you please share your thoughts on the following comment of the Caltech anon you've mentioned. Just to ensure the neutrality of this discussion. Quote: "I know a couple of other Caltechers who have established accounts and addressed claims like yours in detail. See User:Michaelbusch and User:Philosophus. 131.215.64.195 (talk) 22:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)" I-netfreedOm (talk) 17:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know who the editor behind this account is, and that editor knows who I am and who Philosophus is. Unless required to do so, I will not break the anonymity. I agree with many of the views of the anon, but encourage civility. Michaelbusch (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.