Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Norman Grigg

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, Consensus is that there is sufficient in the sources to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 09:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William Norman Grigg[edit]

Only claim to notability is being an editor of a non-notable (I believe) magazine of a notable society. Clearly fails the guidelines of notability for authors. RJaguar3 | u | t 07:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There's likely a major WP:COI problem with this article. Two-thirds of the article was written by an IP editor with an edit summary containing the name Tom Eddlem. Google search reveals a blog written by Tom Eddlem called Dangerous Talk where the main page advertises one of William Grigg's books. In addition, the bio page on the blog reveals that Tom Eddlem has worked at many of the same locations as William Grigg and contributes to many of the same publications. --Millbrooky (talk) 00:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A surprisingly well-written article. (It is much more interesting than our current article on the John Birch Society). ~~I can't quite bring myself to vote 'Delete.' though~~ The article lacks reliable sources that testify to Grigg's importance as a columnist, or show that his writings have had any broad influence. In a brief Google search I could only find web sites that refer to his work, no other publications. It is not a good sign that the Wikipedia article on him is also the #1 Google hit for his name. Nonetheless, it is still fun to discover a John Birch Society guy who is an ardent defender of civil liberties. Maybe some kind soul who sees this AfD will dig up reliable sources before the AfD runs out? EdJohnston (talk) 02:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - he has also written at least five books, and contributed to more than one magazine. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the 15-minute search test is well-populated, but my evidence was lost in cyberspace and I don't wish to take another 15 minutes recreating it. However, Ed will be happy to know a thorough Google search reveals plenty to build on and "clearly fails" is inapposite (nom has also submitted AFD for the magazine instead of properly redirecting it). Author of 6 books; senior editor at John Birch Society; apparently now webmaster of Robert W. Welch Foundation (not related to Robert A. Welch Foundation); significantly covered twice by Los Angeles Times, also by Denver Post and other papers (for work towards impeaching Clinton); writes frequently for LewRockwell.com, plus American Conservative and a journal of studies in reformed theology; his work was cited in another reliable source; and I believe I saw the musical career in a reliable source too. Sufficiently significant collective body of work per WP:CREATIVE. The problem is unencyclopedicity, not notability. Please keep in mind that if article is deleted rather than cut back, I will be compelled to recreate it from scratch, which I have successfully done with G. Edward Griffin: this option is, however, much easier when notability is already agreed on rather than when the fight is ongoing. Thanks. JJB 21:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The dog ate my homework? Your argument would be more persuasive if you could actually present the reliable sources here. If I could see them, I might change my vote without needing to see changes to the article. Being the author of (say) widely-ignored books would not be a claim to fame. Being an officer of an organization is usually not a claim to fame. (See WP:CREATIVE for the requirements). A search for 'william norman grigg' at latimes.com does not find anything. EdJohnston (talk) 23:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per John J. Bulten. - Diligent Terrier (and friends)21:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Terrier! If this can stay open another day I'll see what I can cast in (and recast). JJB 16:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Disambig on Welch Foundations added above. JJB 18:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC) I have added a few cites. Google Books shows about 30 books which have cited him as well. That should suffice for this AFD. JJB 20:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, 33 is not a large number of citations, and most of those are just trivial citations (according to Grigg, ...). I do not believe that to qualify as significant coverage of his works, which the notability guideline requires. RJaguar3 | u | t 20:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to pay attention to JJB's arguments once he comes up with the references that he can no longer find. "I believe I saw the musical career in a reliable source too." What reliable source? EdJohnston (talk) 21:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The LA Times, in the youth camp article, in passing. They are not references I can no longer find, they are references which it takes time to write up. Having 30 people cite you in books is "widely cited by their peers or successors" per WP:CREATIVE, and the several news articles are "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" per WP:N. "Significant coverage of his works" is not the policy; the topic is not Liberty in Eclipse. That said, I had assumed that my statements were sufficient in good faith. It is not necessary to perfect the article in 5 days, merely to demonstrate notability, which has been done, unless widely cited does not equal cited 33 times. JJB 22:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Search full name in quotes in Google, return 50 results per page, switch to News, and select all dates. That yields 400 articles by and about him. I did the first page already. The second page [1] currently begins with a third Las Vegas Review-Journal, Dallas Morning News, Deseret News, Daily Herald, a third Los Angeles Times, Seattle Times, Providence Journal, Augusta Chronicle, Greensboro News & Record, and St. Louis Post-Dispatch. I would appreciate it if someone else would comb through some more of the 400 articles to find additional biographical material. And we haven't even begun the "William Grigg" searches. This is much more than could be found on G. Edward Griffin. Thanks. JJB 22:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, most of those references are trivial speaking engagements (W.N.G. will be speaking tonight at ... at 7:00 PM) and citations. I just don't see how others in his field are widely citing him. If that were the case, then there would be no question to notabiblity. However, the lack of wide citation in his field by academics is what makes him non-notable. RJaguar3 | u | t 10:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Edited to add: Also, he is not the subject of those articles, which once again raises the question of whether anything in a Wikipedia article about him could be sourced by reliable sources without original research. RJaguar3 | u | t 10:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Most of those references": have you looked at all 400 articles, counted how many are not by Grigg (perhaps 100), and counted how many are trivial speaking engagements, to support the word "most", which means "a majority of"? "Citation in his field by academics": while academics are admittedly regarded as better sources, why are you importing the word "academics" from elsewhere in the policy I quoted, when it refers instead to cites by "peers or successors"? "Not the subject of those articles": have you looked at all 400 articles to determine how many he is not the subject of, including "No Left Turn" (already cited), a 500-word article solely about one of his speeches? "Original research": of the seven reliable sources I have already used to support facts in the article, which constitute original research? We have a tag for that. After all that, we still have the issue that beyond the significant coverage, a large number of one- and two-line mentions also indicates significance after a certain point. But my friend, I didn't join Wikipedia so that I could spend my time arguing against "33 is not a large number of citations" (WP:NOTBIGENOUGH) and the like. Would you like to compromise on "no consensus default keep", or do you want to help me build the article today? There is much more material than in either of these two successful discussions: [2] [3]. JJB 13:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

"No Left Turn" is cited once. (I can't view the article, so I know nothing about it apart from the abstract.) This leaves just a few remaining sources from the article's references. Of the ones that aren't self published, the top reference (the only page that is fully-readable) gives just a passing mention to Grigg, while the article's subject is JBS. Most of the rest of the article is uncited, and given the quality of the sources already cited, as well as the ones I found on the second page of the Google search (I admit, I did not read them all, I just took a sample from the summaries on the second page), I cannot see how reliable third-party independent sources can back up the claims in this article. Hence, I do not believe it to be notable for that and for all the above reasons I have mentioned.

And I am willing to work with you to make it better. However, I would like to see direct links to articles (since I do not have a subscription to a newspaper database). Otherwise, as much as I would like to help, I'm afraid I cannot. RJaguar3 | u | t 10:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The number of citations in the article is not a deletion argument; the number of citations available is. The viewability of a full source is not a deletion argument, especially when it only sources facts taken from the abstract; at WP:V we have been discussing the point that pay articles are just as much verification as free articles. A hundred sources, even if only one is fully topical, do add up to significant coverage. The unciteability of Eddlem's material is not a deletion argument; just excise what of Eddlem you don't like (I did!). Repeating: notability is established by "widely cited by their peers or successors" per WP:CREATIVE and "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" per WP:N. I don't have a pay subscription either, but much can be done without one. JJB 13:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Getting published 6 times makes him notable in itself. More than many authors on hereYobmod (talk) 10:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those are published by the John Birch Society/New American, which qualifies as self-publication. Getting published 6 times in a publication by an organization you are a leading member of is not notability. RJaguar3 | u | t 10:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jaguar is actually correct here in the second sentence. It is, rather, the wide variety of independent citations that crosses the threshold of notability. E.g., Grigg has also been published in about 15 essay compilations, many of them in the juvenile "Opposing Viewpoints" book series of Greenhaven Press: [4]. If they regard him as widely suitable for teens, all of these are proper for inclusion in his bibliography, as has been done in other articles. These are both third-party and notable. JJB 13:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

keep - the refs might use a bit of work, but clearly notable enough. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:22, 26 June 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.