Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven M. Greer (2nd 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. John254 23:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steven M. Greer

fails WP:BIO ScienceApologist (talk) 02:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 03:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- This is nontrivial coverage from an independent, reliable source. There's other stuff too, but this will do for now. Also I say merge The Disclosure Project into his article. Reyk _YO! 04:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to The Disclosure Project (if the latter is kept). Greer has been in the news, but the only extended coverage is in connection to that project. His other works are covered by the UFO insulated community, but do not appear notable to the wider world. There does not appear to be enough independent coverage of the subject himself to write a quality non-BLP article. - Eldereft (cont.) 04:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the previous AfD two months age was resolved as no consensus. - Eldereft (cont.) 04:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep On second thought, this article would make a better home for the combined Greer/Disclosure article. T'other way around would be okay, but we would be losing sourced information. - Eldereft (cont.) 01:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Point is? WP:N.Vufors (talk) 10:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see no arguments for deleting. Timneu22 (talk) 12:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge The Disclosure Project here, as per Reyk. If Greer and his multiple projects are getting real media coverage, it makes sense for Wikipedia to provide information about them in one place; the logical place would be this (not very good yet) bio of Greer. The relevant question for Wikipedia is not "Scientist or charlatan?" The relevant issue is "Notable or not notable?" betsythedevine (talk) 14:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect The Disclosure Project to this article. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems quite notable and the nomination is obviously one of a set of pointy drive-bys. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No reason given for deletion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.169.209 (talk) 15:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC) — 80.2.169.209 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Here we go again... Since no reasons have been given this time I have second thoughts. The ones who were unable or unwilling to accept the decision of the last AfD ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Steven_M._Greer )now want reach their goal by trying to sell a "merge". Two months ago we have thoroughly discussed all aspects of this subject. Please accept the decision. Nothing have changed since then. I-netfreedOm (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC) — I-netfreedOm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Weak keep As the closing admin of the preceding debate, I don't quite understand the point of restarting this debate two months later without bringing more solid arguments than "fails WP:BIO". I understand the concerns of those who believe that Greer is a fraud that doesn't deserve Wikipedia's attention but as I said in my closing rationale, the best solution for an article about a man who is at best a kook, at worst a conman is, given the existence of sufficiently reliables sources about his life, beliefs and actions, the construction of an article portraying him in fair light. This includes both fair praise and fair criticism. In Greer's case, I think it is worth noting that there's a lot of fair criticism and relatively little fair praise. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 19:50, 6 August 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.