Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven M. Greer (3rd 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 keep. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 20:35, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Steven M. Greer

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Trivial mentions in reliable sources, significant coverage about his non-profit research group rather than the subject himself. Other sources cover what he has said in his expert capacity as an ufologist, rather than information about the subject. nearlyevil 665 21:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 21:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dr.Greer has a lot of very important and relevant information to pass on. This site should not be deleted. This man has spent most of his adult life in the pursuit of freedom of information and to support free energy for all and peace.This man should be applauded not deleted. 92.30.204.99 (talk) 11:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how Wikipedia works. We need reliable citations to prove he is Wikipedia notable. Sgerbic (talk) 00:36, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what "relevant info he's trying to pass on", the US Navy already released cockpit videos of the mystery "tic tacs" they couldn't identify. That's been news now for a year or two. Regardless, this fellow has no reliable sources on which to base a wikipedia article. Oaktree b (talk) 20:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he could be a fraud I signed up for his app. and it did not work and I could not get any help with it. I got ripped off! 216.24.45.9 (talk) 19:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What app, he's a ufo truther? Oaktree b (talk) 19:56, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedia I am looking for information on Dr. Greer..here we have it Thank you! Quit the LEFT SLANT AND JUST LET US READ AND DETERMINE FOR OURSELVES THE RELEVANCE! 207.183.175.91 (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
please update with reliable sources and we'll keep it. Oaktree b (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Paranormal and North Carolina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:02, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per multiple refs providing significant coverage, including: The first three refs, New Yorker (2021), Yoga Journal (1989), and Outside (1994). The BBC News (2001) ref, as pointed out in the second AfD for this article. --Hipal (talk) 17:04, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editing is a better direction because deleting may appear as an attempt to cover up the message and the work. 71.172.184.122 (talk) 21:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to cover up, the US Navy has proven UFO's are a "thing". His "message" isn't news, we already know. This fellow has no reliable sources on which to base an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No its not. You need to familiarize yourself with what the nominator is saying and Wikipedia's notability policies, such as the

WP:GNG. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion of sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – besides numerous references, the subject has a significant amount of authority control identifiers. Jay D. Easy (t • c) 18:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We need reliable references, self-published works and press-releases aren't suitable. Oaktree b (talk) 20:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only sources that come up are press-releases. Non-notable as a physician either. Oaktree b (talk) 19:57, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A subarticle was merged/redirected to this BLP article since the sources were rare and new updates were lacking. On the other hand, the sources appear sufficient for the main BLP article to exist. Some of the sources also appear to be prominently about Greer, like [1]. —Paleo Neonate – 06:39, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hipal and PaleoNeonate. Subject clearly meets notability guidelines. Jusdafax (talk) 22:33, 22 June 2022 (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.