Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen H. Greenfield

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 no consensus to delete W.marsh 17:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allen H. Greenfield

Allen H. Greenfield (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)
Priors: Allen Greenfield (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (AfD, AfD 2)
T. Allen Greenfield (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (AfD)

This article is the same as the previous articles for "T. Allen Greenfield" and "Allen Greenfield." These articles were deleted after the administration deemed Mr. Greenfield a "non-noteworthy person." I believe that these efforts to recreate this article are being perpetrated by Mr. Greenfield's friends or persons who have a business relationship with him and wish to use this forum as a free advertising agency. This entry has been deemed non-noteworthy and so should not be in Wikipedia. Eyes down, human. 17:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment This technically qualifies as WP:CSD#G4 – recreation of deleted content, but given the thin participation in the second AfD it might be good to give this the full five-day run. ~ trialsanderrors 18:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I haven't seen the original article (I'm not an admin), but apparently this is a complete rewrite. Or so the author says... - Richfife 18:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment - Yes, this article is a completely different version from the previous article. The previous article was essentially a copy of the Allen Greenfield's press-release-ish bio from one of his websites; this isn't. --Jackhorkheimer 21:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Move to user space and send it to a deletion review It looks like the article may be worthy (or not, what do I know?), but recreating under a slightly different name is definitely not the right approach here. - Richfife 18:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Maybe keep? From what I can tell, there are verifiable sources to establish notabaility (reputability is another matter!) Shaundakulbara 18:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, still not persuaded that these are reliable sources, arguably g4 speediable. NawlinWiki 18:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - It's a bit troubling that the references section is longer than the text of the article; what exactly are these references supposed to be providing sources for? If there's that much material available, expand the article. If they're just corroborating that he exists by mentioning in passing, he's probably not notable. Geoffrey Spear 19:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - please, for the love of Wikipedia, read and absorb WP:AGF. If not for Wikipedia, then at least for the increased harmony you'll experience with others when you stop slighting contributors' characters and start talking more about Wikipedia articles and policies. --Jackhorkheimer 21:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Editorial comments are perfectly within AGF. A challenge to clarify the content of the sources needs to be met by the provider of the sources. The best way to do this is to provide either quotes or links. ~ trialsanderrors 04:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment - please note that the AGF comment was directed at the line in the nom that 999 is somehow part of a cabal dedicated to the promotion of the subject of the article, despite that 999 has always seemed to me to be a quality contributor guided by the principles of Wikipedia. As far as sources go, yes questions about them most likely fall within AGF. However, I'm not sure how seriously one can challenge sources based solely on conjecture instead of an actual examination of them. --Jackhorkheimer 09:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Sources aren't just there to be dumped at the bottom of an article. The article has to be written based on the sources, and editors are required to fulfill requests to tighten sourcing around the claims of the article, in particular the claims to notability (which itself seems to be missing, btw). ~ trialsanderrors 09:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Regardless of subject's merit (or lack thereof) for inclusion, this method of recreating an article is highly suspect. The initial Greenfield and Del Campo articles read like advertisements for those authors' books. I am concerned that these new articles are, in fact, just efforts to promote a couple of marginal occult authors and sell some books. Eyes down, human. 11:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Gets 1200 Ghits under T. Allen Greenfield and another 161 under Allen H. Greenfield and probably more under "Allen Greenfield" if one could separate out other people with the same name. He's linked to from 9 other Wikipedia articles, and his works have been used as a reference in several of those. He seems to be one of the few researchers on two historical organizations, Hermetic Brotherhood of Luxor and Hermetic Brotherhood of Light, and a brief look inside Jocelyn Godwin's The Hermetic Brotherhood of Luxor shows him used as a reference and referred to as "Dr. Greenfield", apparently he holds a Doctor of Divinity degree not mentioned in the article. Of the sources, Adler is reputable, Godwin is reputable and Wilson is well-known. Jefferson Anderson 17:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • keep three review of the author's book in publishs journals is enough to establish notability for me. --Salix alba (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Moved long comment to the talk page. MensKeperRa, please read WP:AfD#AfD etiquette and WP:AfD#How to discuss an AfD/Wikietiquette. State your position and reasons once, clearly, and please refrain from attempting to sway other editors opinions. Thanks. Jefferson Anderson 23:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Jefferson Anderson. See talk page for comment. Rosencomet 23:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Is there any justification whatsoever for moving comments to an AfD's talk page? The discussion on an AfD is supposed to be held on one page, and one editor pushing his own POV on the issue by moving a contrary opinion to another page is, IMO, completely inappropriate and borders on vandalism. Geoffrey Spear 14:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep TheQuandry 15:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Eyes down, human. and NawlinWiki and Geoffrey Spear BackMaun 16:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This author is CLEARLY notable. In fact, if the persons involved in the earlier deletes had actually been occultists or Neopagans or even casually acquainted with either field, those deletes would probably not have happened. The ONLY viable reason for delete is a lack of proper procedure. This new, completely rewritten article should have been created in user space and a deletion review initiated to get the original article name un-salted. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 01:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems notable enough. Abeg92contribs 22:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm not convinced that this meets notability guidelines, but procedurally, if it was deleted twice, the rewrite needs to go to userspace and review as stated. I don't think not doing this was a "mistake" on the part of the author, and the subsequent mess is an attempt to undercut the critics because the author got caught. MSJapan 18:13, 5 February 2007 (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.