Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Felton

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. This has indeed become a well-sourced article. What is missing, as noted by many commentors below, is reliable sources that directly attest to notability. There is a great deal out there written by the subject, but very little written about the subject, or his influence. The two published books do not seem to be by large, nationwide publishers. I am not WP:SALTing the article, as their is no bias against recreating should reliable evidence of notability be found. Pastordavid (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Felton

[edit]
Greg Felton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

I do not believe that the subject of this article is sufficiently notable for inclusion based on third party reliable resources and would like input from the community about whether he meets the bar for notability This controversial journalist has published articles in various newspapers, websites, and has even published a book, but there are very few independent sources about him or his work. For example, I can find no independent reviews of his book. There have been a few mentions of him in the media: one, an Ezra Levant opinion piece in the National Post , calls him a "notorious anti-Semite" in passing, [1] and an article in the UBC's School of Journalism magazine mentions him being "silenced" at the Courier.[2] According to the subject he has won some (mostly provincial?) awards for journalism Talk:Greg_Felton Is this enough to be notable? I myself think not.

It should also be noted that the article has been created (twice) by Felton's detractors, deleted as an attack page following complaints to OTRS, blanked by an IP associated with the subject after its recreation [3] and has been the subject of editing wars including the addition of edits that have violated WP:BLP and WP:OR , and edits by the subject of the article that violate WP:COI. It has been the subject of posts to WP:BLPN Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Greg_Felton, and a request for comment based on BLP concerns at the Canadian wikipedians board [4] The article seems to be a magnet for editors who are critical of his views and is currently semi-protected as a result. The present article appears to be to fall afoul of multiple WP:BLP policies, including too much of the subject's own self-published material given the length of the article, unbalanced, including 'quote mining' by his detractors of Felton's more controversial views, though an attempt has been made to balance these by a neutral editor.

In the end, however, these issues are secondary to the overall issue about whether it is possible and/or desirable to write a WP:NPOV article about someone for whom there are so few third party reliable sources, and therefore whose notability is so questionable. Over to you for your opinions. Slp1 (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"End of AFD" summary by nominator This AFD has succeeded in uncovering a few additional secondary sources about this columnist, including some short articles from Edmonton newspapers in 2004 which mention Felton as part of a made complaint by B'Nai Brith and its outcome. An additional student newspaper article has been found, as has a reference in a book by the interesting (and probably highly unreliable) David Icke, and a couple of radio interviews which most editors seem to see as primary sources. Felton's notability (except possibly for one or two events in his life) appears marginal at best. As noted above, the article has been created multiple times (3 times, I now believe) by a detractor, who introduced dubious and even false information,[5] and who is now arguing for deletion. Its subject has also edited it, though to my mind his recent edits (typos, removing incorrect information about a book) appear to fall within WP:COI guidelines.[6][7] As alluded to above, and as shown by this AFD and recent article editing, this article is often more of a battleground, soapbox as well as a purveyor of original research via the "quote" sections. I concur with User:EdJohnston below that there are very few useable secondary resources in addition to limited evidence of Felton's notability, and that this needs to be borne in mind given the the past history of attack pages, POV and COI editing, and the need to maintain an accurate, informative, NPOV BLP article. --Slp1 (talk) 13:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep delete - much as I may disagree with the person described in the article, he seems to be notable enough (a book, occasional newspaper coverage, etc.). The editing wars are not really relevant in deciding whether to keep him or not. My vote is to weak keep, as the article in the current state indeed is not fulfilling some of Wikipedia standards. Pundit|utter 22:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC). All in all the person is on the very verge of notability, if at all. In the current state we all agree the article does not adhere to standards. Looking for resources and wikization would call for a lot of effort (providing that notability could be established) and by plain common sense I don't think it is very likely to happen. Thus, I'm switching sides. Pundit|utter 23:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and suggest SALTing. I concur with Slp1's summary of the situation above. I attempted to clean-up this article in the past but I am still greatly concerned that the article is a coat-rack to discuss Felton's views and in violation of WP:BLP and WP:NOR, in that it tries to divine Felton's views by what he has written about. There are no reliable sources about Felton himself so the article fails the WP:BIO guidelines. I see no future for this article other than an attack page. I understand getting emotional and angered by Felton's writings and wishing to counter them but Wikipedia is not the venue. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete:Tiamut's work on the article has improved it greatly and allayed my fears of an OR, coat-rack article. However, despite the additional references, I am still not convinced he meets WP:BIO. The sources are two journalism school magazines, Felton's website, and book blurbs (generally written by the publisher or author himself). I agree that the school articles do have significant coverage of Felton but are the magazines' coverages significant, i.e., are they read? Should closing admin decide it does not meet inclusion criteria, I would still suggest a salting to require admin approval to re-create. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article This article should be kept in. It is properly sourced and provides accurate information. The fact that some of what Felton says is controversial is no reason to delete it. This is not an attack ad as there is no editorializing or inappropriate language. Rather, it is a brief summary of Felton's views on subject which, although controversial, are worth noting. In conclusion, this article should be kept. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Please see my comment below about the expansion of the article and the addition of at least four third-party sources (or look at this diff). Your request has, I believe, been met. Tiamut 13:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt an ex-columnist for a giveaway weekly newspaper isn't notable and this is underscored by the fact that there don't seem to be any third-party sources for this article. Being a whack-job conspiracy theorist doesn't make him notable either (ie his views don't make him notable, just undesirable). He's written a book that's been underwhelming in sales (not even making Amazon.com's top 500,000) and his publisher, Dandelion, is a vanity press[8] Let him fester in obscurity. The fact that this article has been deleted twice because of BLP violations and keeps being revived by his detractors is a concern. Reggie Perrin (talk) 22:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC) Changing vote to Abstain - Tiamut has improved the article by adding third party sources. He's still a minor figure and I'm not convinced he's notable enough to merit an article and, frankly, reading about him makes my skin crawl so I'm not sure I can be objective here. Reggie Perrin (talk) 14:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC) Delete this is too much of a gong show and the dangers of this either becoming a self-promotional article or a attack piece are too great right now. Let's wait a few months and see if the number and quality of third party sources on Felton have improved. Reggie Perrin (talk) 14:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE AND SALT Keep the subjects own writings on wikipedia reflect what is written in his books. He is not Wolf Blitzer, but he is well known inside the community of people who follow middle eastern affairs, mainly involving Israel and Palestine. Which is mostly due to his controversial writings which are interpreted by many within the Jewish community as racism in disguise. I actually concur with the majority of wiki editors here. Most of the reference comes from a blog, most of this information was posted by the subject himself. The only reliable reference to this subject is from other blogs and special interest journals. Despite the subject having his own web site, I feel the author appears to be attempting to use this wikipedia page as a personal advertisement. Amongst wikipedia members he has little importance as it is same crowd here that was here several months ago, no other input except for a new user and the apparent subject himself (who appears only to have an account to edit his own page) I strongly agree to delete and salt this page permanently until the subject gains real notability which can be verified by reputable sources. best regards.--Eternalsleeper (talk) 05:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My 2 cents:Greetings wikipedia editors and assorted interested people:

    Since I am the subject of this site, I'd like to add a few comments, as invited to do by Slp1. As many of you know this is the second page that has been created about me, each time by eternalsleeper. He created the page to repeat the libel spread by Ezra Levant, whom DoubleBlue and possibly others has recognized as an unreliable source.

    Though many of you may not like what I have to say, much less agree with it, nobody has been able to fault my research or my arguments. I invite CJCurrie, for example, to query me on any specific point, since he has expressed disapproval of my writing.

    I appreciate that my page may be a stub and therefore suitable for deletion, but in this instance, I ask that my page not be deleted for two reasons:

    1) If it is, some other nefarious individual will start it up again for the sole purpose of repeating Levant's libel and attempting to smear me. At least now the page is protected against vandalism.

    2) My views, contoverisal though they may be, are, as hyperionsteel writes, widely distributed. I am one of the few Canadian journalists not in the pay of the pro-Israel mainstream press, and as such I believe I fill an important information niche. I know people are reading my page because my website aggregator records increasing referrals from Wikipedia.

    I do understand that my page needs fleshing out so I would like, with your permission, to write a short précis of myself as it pertains to my writing (sourced, of course) for inclusion. I will not post it myself but give it to hyperionsteel. If that is acceptable, please let me know.

    I will also upload a photo.

    Anyway, that's my contribution to this matter. Sorry it's been so time-consuming, but so long as vandals are kept away, I don't see whay it should not stay up.

    Happy Wiki New Year! Voxveritatis (talk) 03:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Accusations: I have not edited his page for over two months nor have I even looked at it, when will this lawlessness on his page be dealt with in the proper fashion?

      This user claims to be Greg Felton himself and is demanding that people go to him to get the truth and now he mentions he will update a photo for his site. Thank you Voxveritatis for your contributions to wikipedia, and the laughs.

      As for his page being deleted, I don't think it should be but it wouldn't both me one bit if it was. I don't understand how the other editor feels it's a, "POV" unless they mean that due to the subject editing his own article it is becoming a conflict of interest.

      I don't disagree with what's written on his page now, and I have no interest to waste my time with this subject of little importance.--Eternalsleeper (talk) 05:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Dear Greg, its not about what you say, but about whether anybody notices. So far we've searched and have not found any reliable third party sources citing or referring to you. Sorry. Pundit|utter 07:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Pundit: I understand your position. I am only concerned that, once removed, the issue of defamation will return anew. If the page is to be deleted, can a permablock be placed on starting it up to regurgitate second-hand libels? Please bear in mind that the page was started for precisely that reason. I notice that Wikipedia editors spend a lot of time responding to vandalism, so I appreciate that my page is more trouble than it is worth. Voxveritatis (talk) 23:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Several editors have suggested to the closing admin that the article be WP:SALTed which would mean the deleted page would be protected against re-creation and requiring an administrator to remove the block in order to re-create the article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: DoubleBlue: Salting sounds fine. I think this is the best solution. However, I disagree with your editing of my comments regarding eternalsleeper. It is a fact that he started the page, and it is a fact that he did so to exploit a second-hand defamatory comment about me. This is not a personal attack. He admits on the Greg Felton talk page that he started it, and his conduct before and since has borne out the truth of the second part of my statement. The misconduct of eternalsleeper throughout this episode is the one subject that has not been treated satisfactorally. Voxveritatis (talk) 08:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Greg Felton (Voxveritatis) has since asked that his wikipedia bio page be kept. See his comment and keep vote farther down. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have refactored some comments and removed some personal attacks as per Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Please keep discussion on topic of whether page should be deleted or not. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. GJ (talk) 04:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Please note I have made a number of additions to the article, as represented in this diff. Most significantly, I've added at least four third-party references on Felton and his work, and more material found on his website (such as the section on Interviews which also provides links to mp3 recordings of the interviews with him). I don't see how he fails our notability guidelines at all, and the disruptive editing tactics of his opponents are not a vaible rationale for deletion. I encourage those who have already voted to review the changes that have been made and reflect upon and/or alter their votes accordingly. Tiamut 13:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You refer almost exclusively to his own articles or articles published on his own website like this one - this by no means is a third party source, is it? It is even impossible to check whether the articles not by him were indeed published anywhere else. Information about a meeting promoting a book is not, as you apparently thought, a valid reference - nobody disputes the existence of the book , and the meeting, if it proves anything, it confirms only that the book is out and the author wants to promote it. You confirmed Felton's entering the finals of Jack Webster award, but I'm not even sure if the award is important enough to count for the actual winner, and not just a nominee. And so on. Pundit|utter 14:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but I don't think you are being fair. The article by Nancy Lees (1999), entitled, "The Culture of Cowardice" is from The Langara Journalism Review. If the copy we have is from Felton's site, that doesn't mean we cannot verify the original source of publication. Another article I cited is by Natasha Muslih (April 1999, Issue 3 Volume 1) and was published in Thunderbird Magazine. These two articles establish the controversy over Felton's being forbidden to write on Israel-related issues, which Muslih writes even went to Canadian Press Council in a case that Felton lost when they ruled that publishers could determine what they do and do not want to see in print their privately-owned publications. This alone is in my opinion enough to establish notability. You also ignore the other third party references citing Felton's work such as the Arts in Education newsletter and David Icke's book. Tiamut 15:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further, do not forget the interviews with mainstream media outlets in Canada such as those conducted by Michael Smyth on "Nightline B.C." (CKNW 98 AM - 14 August 2006 [9]) and by Jon McComb on "The World Today" (CKNW 98 AM - June 6 2006 [10]. These indicate notability, at least in Canada. That he is regularly published in the Tehran Times, Middle East Times, and elsewhere in international media indicate that thereis familiarity with his work outside of Canada as well. Tiamut 15:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict so not a totally logical response, perhaps)

Indeed, and with all due respect to Tiamut, who has done a tremendous amount of work on winkling out sources, I am still not convinced that he makes the grade of "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." The independent sources we have now (as I say, mostly thanks to Tiamut):
  • A City of Vancouver website showing that he was promoting his book
  • Blurbs from Amazon
  • Two articles from college newspapers/magazines[11] from Thunderbird magazine and [12] from the Langara Journalism Review
  • Quoted in a book published by "Bridge of Love Publications" and written by conspiracy theorist extraordinaire David Icke, whose Wikipedia page I have never before had the pleasure of reading. I particularly like the part about him announcing he (David) was the son of God in an interview with Terry Wogan;-)
So, I can't honestly agree that any of these are reliable sources by WP standards, thus meet the standard for WP:BIO. And unfortunately, according to WP:BIO these are what we have to go on, since "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject." In any case, apart from the books, the articles you have mentioned have been published mostly on the political forum Media Monitors Networks (Please note that MMN is not a news site per se and actually calls itself a political platform [13] inviting invites any and all to contribute [14]), some interviews related to his book launch, and some local newsletters, work for the Canadian Arab News, which I frankly can't find out much about at all, and the website is not that helpful [15], a mention on website called the Canadian Spectator [16], and some articles in Middle Eastern papers. While thanking you for your work on this, I still don't think he meets the criteria, I am sorry to say. Slp1 (talk) 15:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't agree more with Slp1. Tiamut did an excellent job collecting all the information available, but it is not enough. Just to clarify: I was not challenging the article by Nancy Lees, but rather the manner of referring to some source placed on the described person's personal website, as this is hardly satisfying reliability requirements. Other remarks - as expressed by Slp1. Pundit|utter 16:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite sure there are more and better sources to be found (I don't have access to Canadian newspaper archives for example, in which I am quite sure we would find a significant body of material on the controversy over Felton's writing at the Courier.
Additionally, while I appreciate both Pundit's and Slp2's comments, they both ignore the two radio interviews with mainstream Canadian radio outlets, one of which focused on Felton negatively, but nevertheless discussed his work, the other of which consulted him as an expert guest on internal Palestinian political developments. It is quite clear he enjoys some notability, particularly so in the Canadian media sphere. Does he have to universally and internationally famous for him to be included in Wikipedia? Tiamut 16:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is just that being on the radio is nothing particular, really. I was invited to radio panels and for radio interviews about 8-10 times - radio stations need to fill the air time, I would expect ANY author of a book to be able to get on the air a number of times just because of the publication. On the other hand, the lack of printed, reliable third-party resources is a very strong indicator the person IS NOT notable. Maybe there are articles on him somewhere in the depths of Canadian local and paid-access only journal databases, but so far we have not found them. If anybody brings them reliably on, the discussion can surely reopen (and even if the article is deleted, you can then make an argument to bring it back). Pundit|utter 16:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then, I guess it comes down to the closing admin's interpretation of whether WP:BIO's notability standards have been met, or might be met with more research. I should mention that I have removed the WP:OR selective quotations of Felton's work since my last comments here. I think Felton is notable primarily for the controversy his work generated at the Vancouver Courier, which was the subject of considerable coverage in other newspapers, according to the two third-party sources cited. While he is a prolific writer, authors of hudnreds of articles and two books, you are correct in noting that we have so far been unable to find significant third-party coverage of that body of material (besides the two radio interviews in 2006). I believe there is more to be found and that we have already established some notability, at least in the Canadian media sphere. But I can accept that others may interpret WP:BIO more stringently. I tend not to, given that much of the scholarship I am familiar with, doesn't get much mainstream coverage since it deeply critical of mainstream media and its tendencies, posing a kind of catch-22. Anyway, whatever happens, thanks for your honest and fair input. Tiamut 17:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To return the compliment, I too appreciate your calm, measured approach to this situation, your editing, and agree that there is the danger of systematic bias, though I suppose I feel less convinced of the application in the case of a Canadian and working in Canada. BTW I agreed with your deletion of the 'quote mining' section, though note they have been returned now by another editor, claiming you were trying to whitewash Felton's views, (sigh) and Felton himself has removed the second book you found, saying that it was "published illegally" (sigh). I am happy to leave this decision up to the closing admin, poor thing!!! --Slp1 (talk) 08:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another quick note: above I didn't include the radio interviews as secondary sources, and instead included them as primary sources, thinking of WP:PSTS. On reflection, it seems an interesting point: if the radio programs had been discussions about him and his book (but without him) then they would certainly seem to me to be valid secondary sources that he was notable. Since they are interviews/panels they still seem more like primary sources to me, equivalent to his articles etc, where he gets to express his ideas etc. But I can see how others could come to a different conclusion.--Slp1 (talk) 09:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Tiamut managed to stay calm in the discussion, and was able to bring probably all shards of information about Felton that are available. radio broadcasts may call for a more general discussion about rules, although common sense in current rules may be enough, too. I'd say that in some cases radio interviews definitely fall under primary sources, as Slp1 pointed out. Pundit|utter 15:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment Tom, since when did the subject of an article get an opinion on whether he has a wikipedia page or not? It seems that this subject would like to be immune from criticism and censor information if the subject is actually the user Voxveritatis. I agre that the subject is a mere popular blogger who has gotten some attention from the Canadian Islamic Congress and the JDL with nothing even close to substanstial as the amount of attention he is getting on here, but even though I have general consesnus now with most of the editors points, I do not believe that a subject of this article or any other article should have a say on whether his/her page stays up. That would certainly be a conflict of interest, no?  ::::--Eternalsleeper (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Eternalsleeper, there have been a number of bios of significantly more noteable people who have had there bios taken down recently. I actually agree that that the subject of an article really shouldn't have a say in whether they have an article. It was more pointing out that the subject is ok with delelting and salting this article as he posted already. --Tom 15:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, no WP:SALT - if another meaningless article will be written, then i'm sure it will be quickly deleted. on the other hand, who knows - maybe someone in vancouver will notice him in the years to come. JaakobouChalk Talk 02:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article is written like the subject is Wolf Blitzer. How much of it was written by the subject himself? Since when is this allowed - why wasn't this editor blocked? This article has become comical. I could find more to write about a 2nd year political science student, let alone someone who maintains their own web site and pretends to be an "investigative reporter!"
--Eternalsleeper (talk) 02:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Quit yer whining you hypocrite! My page was not "comical" so long as it contained YOUR non-existent derogatory research, but now that good people like Hyperionsteel and Tiamut have done real research, you denigrate them and make (again!) unsubstatinated false claims about its provenance and veracity. I did not write it! Now that you've started the page, I hope it stays up. If not, I can live with that, too. Voxveritatis (talk) 04:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment lol, Okay Voxveritatis. Keep name calling, I find it comical. 599,103rd on the Amazon best sellers list? Did you see how many links that are added? For fun I looked at other notable journalists and none seem to have as many as greg felton's page does. Why don't you thank me for creating your page? First you complained about it and accused me a Zionist conspiracy against Felton, when I am neither Jewish or a Zionist, now that I voted for deletion you are writing that I am attempting to mislead people and that it's a conspiracy (and that I am really interested!) It's very comical... both the page and the comments, and of course the accusations here if you read everything you have written. At first I thought Greg Felton was notable, but after so many other wikipedia articles disagreed I have come to consensus that Greg Felton is nothing but a popular blogger, an ex-columnist for a small newspaper in the west coast who just presently writes on occasion for the Canadian Arab News? If your page stays on remember that there is no censorship of information and that people can freely critize you if it's wikipedia worthy material. I just can't bear to have the thought of seeing someone break so many wikipedia rules and try to impose freedom sanctions on his page and get away with it. Your opinion on whether your page stays up or not is not in your hands, if Jim Wales is not allowed to edit his own page why should a former newspaper editor for the Vancouver Columnist be able to dictate wikipedia? --Eternalsleeper (talk) 05:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Tiamut has proven notability many times over. Characterizations of Tiamut's comments by others misrepresent and minimize the sources Tiamut has found. Some of the editors calling for deletion are from the usual group of rightist pro-Israeli editors that regularly call for deletion of articles and info they dislike that shows the pro-Palestinian POV. For other incontrovertible examples of this Western systemic bias see my user page. I think people are mixing up whether they like or dislike Greg Felton with whether there should be a Wikipedia article about him or not. Personally, I don't know whether I like Greg Felton or not. I haven't decided yet. The deletion decision concerns whether this article meets notability requirements and nothing else. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Riiight. And that is probably I deceitfully voted weak keep in the first place, only then to investigate any further. Oh, yes, and I'm surely Western. Pundit|utter 05:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There can be honest differences of opinion on notability. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion decision concerns whether this article meets notability requirements and nothing else. The rest of the drama is just a distraction. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't agree more. Though I do think that the ongoing WP:BLP problems are an issue too.--Slp1 (talk) 08:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a web-search suggests to me that this guy is notable. The 15,100 Google references are clearly not his own "self-publishings", they're other people commenting on his activities. PRtalk 20:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi PalestineRemembered and thank you for your vote. Indeed, the high number of google references may suggest notability - can you, then, point to a couple of valid, third-party sources on Felton and not by him/promoting the book? take care Pundit|utter 20:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My name brings up seven million. I looked on google and most of the stuff that pops up is from unreputable sources like Canadian Coalition, Youtube, Tehran Times, Canadian Islamic Congress, a lot of gossipy styled web sites. There is nothing really from a legitimate wikipedia worthy source at all. The subjects claim to fame is being a finalist for a provincial award, which he lost for a book titled "False Claims"...[17] Greg Felton is not news worthy, anyone can write a book. I had a friend who wrote a book and didn't even know it was for sale on Amazon.ca until I showed him, and he had no clue how he was going to get paid if anyone purchased it. He is a popular blogger like writer who has attracted the attention of those involved in Palestine related stories on the Internet and to an extent, a few Canadian Jewish organizations.
--Eternalsleeper (talk) 22:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason to diss the "Tehran Times" - it's the leading International Daily (allegedly) for a nation of 80 million people (ie bigger population than the UK, France or Italy). It's cloying patriotism is not particularily attractive but I'm not sure it's worse than many other RSes. It's front-page story on the US election (admittedly referenced to the BBC) is "better" than any equivalent story from a Western source about an Iranian election.
And Greg Felton's censorship by the RS "Vancouver Courier" (without, presumably, finding serious distortions) should elevate him to some small measure of notability, right there and then. If he'd been silenced because he was guilty of distortions I'm sure he'd have been notable - how much more so in this case when he's been censored for POV only?
Personally, I'm a little concerned about these third-tier biographies of subjects commenting on Israel, since they're so often an excuse for smears. If we can't keep this one clean, then we should delete it - but if we can, then it's well worth having. I know I could easily see a story from him in a blog somewhere and think "I wonder who this guy is, what does Wikipedia say?". Well, Wikipedia says he's a third-tier commentator who may have been censored out of the main-stream media by powerful interests. That's the kind of thing I come to a modern, web-based encyclopedia to discover. He's amply worth the paper he's not printed on. PRtalk 16:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly tried to prove that according to Wikipedia standards. Can you help us by revealing the sources you're relying on in saying he is notable? I believe you that there are reasons for what you write, I just haven't been able to find the proofs of notability myself. Pundit|utter 23:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--The Lobby thinks I'm notable

Pundit: I'm not sure if this will help establish 3-party interest, but on Feb. 23 and 24, 2004 the Edmonton media reported on B'nai Brith's attemtps to censor me. The Edmonton Sun and Edmonton Journal carried the story and can be found on their websites, but for a price. I have copies on my computer. You can find commentary and a copy of the article at project threadbare by searching "greg felton" + "edmonton sun" To noboy's surprise The Edmonton police found the charge of promoting hatred to be unfounded. (April 7, 2004)

If you would like more info on this let me know. Eternalsleeper's frothing has sunk to a new level. Voxveritatis (talk) 05:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this helps greatly in establishing notability. Along with the many things Tiamut has already found. What are the exact titles, authors, publications, and dates of the articles? I can enter the info in the wikipedia article. It is reference material or "further reading" info. Also, I can usually find publicly-archived copies of the articles somewhere on the web if I have the exact title. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
* Timeshifter you can see what voxveritatis is referring to here [18]
B'nai Brith accused the Alberta Arab News of "hate mongering" for publishing Felton's article which they said he denied the Holocaust. B'nai Brith asked the AG to invetigate the Alberta Arab News and the AG told them it's not his job but the polices. Is that news worthy? This information comes from a blog, but the two paragraph article was copied and pasted when it was published four-years ago.
--Eternalsleeper (talk) 07:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. You beat me to it. I had just finished reading the seven-paragraph article and was about to post the link here. Article: "Arab newspaper denies accusations". By Lori Coolican, Edmonton Sun. I still need the date of the article. By the way, I believe people should read the article rather than go by your summary of it.
I will let Tiamut or another editor put the newspaper article reference info into the wikipedia article. I assume the newspaper article came out on February 23 or 24, 2004 since Voxveritatis mentioned those dates for the Edmonton articles, and since the forum thread was written Feb. 24, 2004. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
* Timeshifter For further coverage of the issue, you can go to the Feb. 23, 2004, edition of the Cleveland Jewish News. I can send you the link, if you'd like. Also, the story appeared in the Edmonton Journal on Feb. 20. and the same day on the World News Network wire service, where it appeared in the Egypt Daily.
Voxveritatis (talk) 10:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Please paste the URLs here. Could you also give the exact titles for the Edmonton Journal and Cleveland Jewish News articles? And is the date of the Edmonton Sun article February 23?
I need the exact titles in order to do a phrase search (with quotes around the title) in Google. I have Google toolbar and can do both general web searches and searches of a single website. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
* Timeshifter The Cleveland Jewish News piece is a wire blurb form the Jewish Telegraph Agency "Group wants paper investigated."

Other articles and dates are:

Ryan Cormier, "B'nai Brith accuses Alberta Arab News writer of inciting intolerance," Edmonton Journal, Feb. 20, 2004. Lori Coolican, "Arab newspaper denies accusations" Edmonton Sun, Feb. 24, 2004. Doug Beazely, "B'nai Brith unapologetic" Edmonton Sun, April 9, 2004

Hope this is enough. Voxveritatis (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I (or others) can do some Google searches to find the articles. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is reason to delete a hard-to-maintain biographical article in cases where the subject's notability is marginal, and where the article has already been used as an attack page. I have looked over the recent additions to the references. There are lots of primary sources there, and interviews with Felton don't give evidence of his notability. Dandelion appears to be a vanity press, and Amazon says that book is not currently available. I don't know about Progressive Press. The new sources that are discussed in detail higher up in this AfD don't seem very impressive. When sources are *easily* found, then maintaining a quality article in the face of attacks would be a simpler matter. It seems people are having to search very hard here, and the standard of the sources they are finding is low (like the Edmonton Sun article from February 2004 that was only 200 words, expressing that B'Nai Brith was critical of Felton). When sources are small and fragmentary (even in a reputable publication like the Sun) they don't provide much usable material to incorporate in the article. EdJohnston (talk) 14:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Catch 22 here is if the subject holds views that challenge those of the mainstream press, it stands to reason tnat "official" notability would be harder to find than that of someone who is a mainstream favourite. The criteria for inclusion should not be so narrowly defined, and my notability has been established. Amazon sales of The Host and the Parasite have been stopped at my request because of fiduciary misconduct by Dandelion Books. Progressive Press published an earlier version in breach of contract and should be ignored.

When is a decision on all this going to be made? Voxveritatis (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If all of Felton's views are mentioned in this article, (i.e. his views on 9/11, the Holocaust, Irwin Cotler, and his opposition to Israel's existence), this article should be kept. However, if this article is limited to material that does not tell the whole story, then it should be deleted. Felton does have controversial views on important subjects, and all of them, not just the ones Tiamut wants to be displayed, should be included. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Hyperionsteel: I do tell the whole story, including the zionist of view. The value of my writing, if I may say, lies in its inclusiveness and comprehensiveness. this is why The Lobby and the likes of eternalsleeper go after me. Voxveritatis (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, Hyperionsteel, you seem to misunderstand Wikipedia. We don't need or want 'all of his views' here. The problem (as has been pointed out several times) is that you have been deciding (in this and other articles) which of a person's views are notable, which is Original research and has often appeared to be Quote mining.--Slp1 (talk) 01:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your statement. Felton's views on Israel are one of the major points of this article. In fact, the largest section deals with the controversy over his views on Israel. What's wrong with, in addition to this, quoting articles that he has written in which he makes further statements on Israel. I didn't decide that this topic was important, but rather Tiamut did when he/she created the section which covered the controversy over Felton's views on Israel. How can quoting from his articles in which he discusses Israel not be important? (Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]


Are you ever going to stop accusing me of going after you? I posted an article from Canada.com, I didn't even know who Ezra Levant was. All i did was create your article, it's not only my responsibility to add other information. If it's not true I wouldn't want it on wikipedia. But it's my opinion you should not be editing your own article nor demanding people come to you before making an edit. Good luck to you and please stop being so cynical and paranoid. --Eternalsleeper (talk) 02:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Demonstrably provable arguments do not constitute paranoia, and your feint at innocence is ludicrous. By the way I have never demanded that people come to me before making an edit. The minute you stop lying about me I will ignore you. Voxveritatis (talk) 03:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When will there be a decision?

[edit]

I'd like to know when a decision on this will be made. I've been fighting with Tiamut about what material to include in this article for a while now and I'm tired of it. If this article is going to be deleted anyway, I'd like to know no so I can concentrate on articles that won't be deleted. The proposal for deletion has been on for some time now and the arguing back and forth on this page will never reach a consensus. It's time for a decision (I think we all have better things to do than fight over this forever). (Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

AFD discussions are kept open for a week. Today is the first day that this could possibly have been closed, although given the length and complexity of the discussion I doubt that it'll happen that quickly. Bearcat (talk) 02:38, 8 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Greg_Felton&oldid=1225210844"