Deletion of Steven M. Greer

Comment: I would like to give a few valid ''scientific'' points to this "debate". Let's analyze the definitions of "notability" (see: ) and see if these can be applied to our subject. The basic criteria of notability: "..he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" which is applicable because many main stream media organizations reported on him and on his "Disclosure Project": see search term ""steven greer" disclosure" on GoogleNews. We can thus conclude that he is "presumed to be notable". We now have to prove that he is "generally notable". Quote: "A person is a "Creative professional" (for example quote:"...,authors") if they meet the following standard.... "The person's work either....(c) has won significant critical attention.." Dr. Greer's most widely publicized/reported project "Disclosure Project" (which is an immaterial work/product) indisputably satisfies this premise and thus enables us to label the subject as "Creative professional". We then successfully proved "general notability". Since the subject has met the prerequisites of both basic and general notability we have concluded the proof of Steven Greer's notability
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: Yes, he is a proponent of fringe conspiracy theories but he appears to be notable since there is sufficient coverage of him by reliable sources. GoogleNews gives 70 hitshttp://news.google.com/archivesearch?hl=en&um=1&tab=wn&q=%22Steven+Greer%22+ufo&ie=UTF-8 for ''"Steven Greer" ufo''. Most of them contain nontrivial coverage of Greer personally and his activities and often provide some brief biographical info as well (e.g. references to him as a former emergency room physician). GoogleBooks gives 49 hitshttp://books.google.com/books?q=%22Steven%20Greer%22%20ufo&hl=en&um=1&sa=N&tab=np for the same search. I think this does satisfy :" If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability". In this case there is a fair amount of nontrivial coverage over an extended period of time. I would say that he passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:BIO)