Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Allen H. Greenfield

message: Comment - People have argued that having a "Doctor of Divinity" degree is a sufficient academic credetial to make a person reputable.  However, consider that any religious organization (any "church") has the right to offer a D.D.  This include the on-line Universal Life Church.  Thus, a D.D. is NOT a legitimate academic degree.  Just because one has a Doctor of Divinity does not mean that one has ever done doctoral level research and work.  What is this man's bahcelor's degree in?  What reputable, accredited University did he receive his B.S., B.A., B.F.A., or B.Ph. from?  Where is his D.D. from?  Did he actually have to WORK for his D.D. or did he pay the ULC $100 and get a title?   Further, as to references to him in other Wikipedia entries, consider if he was the source of those references and ask yourself whether or not being a foot-note to history quallifies one to have an article in a history book. Likewise, Google hits can be manufactured or otherwise pumped up for the purpose of advertising and selling a product.  By allowing this recreation to proceed, Wikipedia admins are establishing a very dangerous precedent here.  Now, anyone who feels that they deserve a Wikipedia entry can simply write one for themselves and then, once it is deleted, they can solicit another person to write another article.  Even if that second article is deleted (and the entry protected) all they have to do is continue soliciting writers to change the name of the article in some small way and recreate the article (all the while pumping their Google hits numbers as people research the controversy ongoing in Wikipedia.)  So now ANY marginal author, occultist, or crack-pot has a legitimate defense to creating and re-creating their own Wikipedia articles.  Is that what you want Wikipedia to become? Eyes down, human. 22:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment With all due respect to Eyes down, human, the question is not whether he is "reputable", and certainly not whether he is a crackpot. (And an occultist and a UFOlogist with this many credits is not marginal. Or do you have a problem with Occultists and UFOlogists in any case?) An encyclopedia does not decide whether to include someone based on a value judgement of his ideas, although it may well discuss their validity (or more likely, quote those who question it). Being notable has NOTHING to do with being right or not. If it did, this would be a full-scale 24 hour arguement not just over whether the ideas of Wilhelm Reich, Charles Darwin, Charles Fort, Timothy Leary, or Emperor Norton make them "crackpots", but if anyone who believes what many think are the fairy tales of the Bible are delusional. Ours is not to judge, but to report. If a truly great crackpot, from L. Ron Hubbard to Pat Robertson to the founder of the Flat Earth Society, is notable enough to be quoted in the works of several legitimate authors, and has written and/or contributed to several books, and appeared as guest lecturer at several conferences and on radio and television, he's notable enough to me to have an article about him. If you think that article should only include sourced material and be balanced by sourced material about detractors from his works, well, that's different. Research it. But there's no basis regarding notability for deleting this article IMO. And believe me, there's no reason to prevent an article from being tried again that was deleted before, as long as additional material is supplied. Lots of very good articles only got there after several editors contributed to them.Rosencomet 23:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)