Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Redfern

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Redfern

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to fail WP:BIO. Not any notice outside of the WP:FRINGE community, thus we cannot write an article about him. jps (talk) 16:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Writer with no notices to speak of. Not notable even if all claims in article are true. EEng (talk) 21:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weakish keep The nom's statement is not entirely true. At least one of his books was reviewed by the New York Times: [1], and according to a ProQuest search, Robert Sheaffer reviewed Contactees: A History of Alien-Human Interaction for Skeptical Inquirer ("History and High-Strangeness Speculation". May/June 2010. Vol 34, Issue 3. pg. 59). On top of that, there was some talk about adapting Three Men Seeking Monsters into a movie: [2] Zagalejo^^^ 05:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Very well known, not only in his field but also in the 'mainstream media'. I've added extra sources and facts to establish notability. All the sources meet WP:RS and can be used for WP:V. There are about 50 more sources with a similar depth of coverage available but I don't have time to rewrite the whole thing to incorporate them all right now. If nothing else, he meets WP:AUTHOR as many of his books have been best-sellers which have garnered lots of mainstream press coverage. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given the extra sources, this now seems to meet the guidelines for inclusion. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quality of his work aside, the publishing deals + the movie deals = notability. Definite keep. DS (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2011 (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.