(Go: >> BACK << -|- >> HOME <<)
Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Michael Greer

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. There's only one viable, policy-based "keep" opinion, that by Green Cardamom; the other by Tom Ruen must be discounted because being an "active blogger, published author, and public speaker" are not among our inclusion criteria. And since Green Cardamom's arguments haven't convinced anybody else...  Sandstein  10:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Michael Greer

edit
John Michael Greer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article is self promotion about someone who is not notable. The article was created by someone who stopped posting on Wikipedia soon after the article was created; it has no reliable sources, and of the "sources" listed, one does not exist and the other two are websites about Greer; the article begins with a list of vague and meaningless titles; the bibliography is a long list of pamphlets with no page numbers. This whole article is an advertisement for Greer and likely written by Greer. Note, for example, the number of bibliography additions from earlier in 2013 from two url numbers, rather than a registered and frequent editor.Catherinejarvis (talk) 16:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article may or may not be crap, may need promotional links severely cut, may need verification for content, but that's not grounds for deletion. JMG is a active blogger, published author, and public speaker within the peak oil community as his inclusion in the peak oil template at the bottom. Tom Ruen (talk) 18:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Clearly does not pass notability requirements, sources are self-published or unreliable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can see where he has received some coverage, but not enough to merit an article. Unfortunately all he's really gotten has been trade reviews. He has received some coverage from Midwest Book Review, but they have a bit of a dubious history at times ala Harriet Klausner. (In other words, people have reported that reviews from them are almost always glowing and considered to be sheer promotion as opposed to trade reviews from Publishers Weekly, who is often positive but not nearly to the degree of regularity of MBR.) It's enough to where I don't entirely consider them a RS. However even if we did, I only found about 2-3 reviews by them. They're considered a trade review site at best, and we need more than a handful of trade book reviews to show notability. I did find where Greer is quoted here, but that's not enough to show that he's extremely notable within his field. He's prolific, but he'd need to put out at least 3-4 times what he has now to qualify for that- and that's not always a solid guarantee for keeping an article. I have no problem if someone wants to userfy this, but Greer just doesn't pass notability guidelines right now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:AUTHOR #3 multiple book reviews.
The trade/library reviews are in small text, I figure they are acceptable as further evidence of notability, though not if every review was a trade. Seems to be more than a FRINGE topic. If there's promotion in the text that can be edited, since AfD is topic level not content or who created. -- GreenC 19:35, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While the number of books written is impressive, I'm not seeing the slightest single anything in the first hundred returns of a Google for exact name counting to GNG. Carrite (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed Greer from Template:Peak oil to help see how widely he's cross-referenced in other wiki-article. One example is Valentin Tomberg, although its not clear what in that bio is referenced by Greer's book. Having a book referenced in a wikipedia article may not imply the author is notable, but if he's not notable for a short bio page, you might equally argue his books are not valid references for Wikipedia either. Tom Ruen (talk) 02:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • John Michael Greer, The New Encyclopedia of the Occult. p 488. Llewellyn Worldwide, 2003. ISBN 1-56718-336-0.

DELETE - I have two concerns, now that Tokypgirl79 has edited most of the piece. The first is that the article could be restored with all its puffery after the delete/keep debate is over; the second is the general sense of fakery about it: independent scholar, cultural critic, environmentalist, blogger. These can apply to anyone, including me. Can I get a separate Wikipedia page about myself? No. Closedthursday (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2013 (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.
I'm curious what happpens to the red links from this deletion? Does someone unlink them? [1] Tom Ruen (talk) 03:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Michael_Greer&oldid=1172020950"