Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chip Coffey (3rd nomination)


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Chip Coffey
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article is a WP:BLP but contains no reliable sources. Could not locate reliable sources. There are some newspaper sources which credulously provide a platform for Coffrey on him being a "psychic" but they merely repeat all he says with no criticial analysis. There is none of the coverage required by WP:FRINGE: "A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, in at least one major publication that is independent of their promulgators and popularizers." Second Quantization (talk) 17:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Total lack of reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I'm no fan of Coffey but he is a notable psychic and nothing has changed since the last two AfDs. Page improvements and more RSes may be appropriate. But deletion is not. Simonm223 (talk) 17:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The issue is one of locating those RS. How can we improve the page if you have not shown the sources from which we can do so? Second Quantization (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Second Quantization (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Notwithstanding the RSes from the previous AfD there's also the Skeptic.com information I gave you elsewhere and I think back-issues of Skeptic Magazine have additional mentions of Coffey. This is definitely a case of improve rather than delete. Simonm223 (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Coffey's YouTube comments against bullying and gaybashing are highly laudable, but he isn't notable for those, so having 90% of his bio and a big blockquote devoted to it is WP:OR and way WP:UNDUE. Per Second Quantization, we need sources that are "independent of their promulgators and popularizers" such as Nickell and perhaps the Miami Herald feature that's buried behind paywalls. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, as I've stated before, this article meets Notability (people), just a short search finds several reliable sources that show Coffey "has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". I'm sure there are plenty more out there.
 * Winnipeg Free Press - Rare Medium
 * Gwinnett Daily Post - Medium to host psychic reading at Coolray Field
 * Lubbock Avalanche-Journal - Paranormal State to bring ghost hunting to Texas Tech
 * Star Gazette - Psychic says he's `flying sky-high' over `Airline' appearance
 * Atlanta Journal-Constitution - Lilburn psychic featured on A&E series 'Paranormal and God-given talent'is channeled in mysterious ways
 * Chip Coffey of A&E’s ‘PSYCHIC KIDS’ and ‘PARANORMAL STATE’ Joins Blanc Biehn Productions ‘THE NIGHT VISITOR 2: HEATHER’S STORY "Business Wire Feb 11, 2014


 * Further, the amount of content for a subject that meets WP:N, WP:V, and the other content policies does not factor into whether or not an article should exist - it would only apply if there were very little or no verifiable information on the subject in sources anywhere outside of Wikipedia (e.g. external sources with his name only, or other very limited sources of that nature); that's why we have Stub. With the sources above, the article can definitely be expanded, and I'd begun doing so from those sources.  Clearly, lack of content - or potential content - is not a concern.  And remember, this is a WP:BLP.  Dreadstar  ☥   21:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You've just re-added the same credulous claims back into the article despite WP:FRINGE. Second Quantization (talk) 03:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep and expand on the sources above, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Expand on the sources? What does that mean? Second Quantization (talk) 03:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:GNG. Just because he's a psychic doesn't mean he's not notable. After all, there are tons of articles on these folks, e.g. :Spiritualism and spiritism This isn't an article about science, it's a biography about an interesting person.   Montanabw (talk) 00:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You are still following me I see . Second Quantization (talk) 03:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you are talking about; I found this post when I was at the Fringe theories noticeboard per Fringe_theories/Noticeboard. What does IR Wolfie had to do with any of this?  Montanabw (talk) 20:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep but a weak Keep. This keeps coming up and people keep saying they are going to find the sources, but the page remains less than a stub. I say give us a deadline to improve or remove and maybe that will light a fire under someone who really cares to get it done. If it is deleted it isn't as if we can't someday write another one, but done correctly.Sgerbic (talk) 00:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The sources above are the same credulous sources as the previous AfDs. Where are the critical sources I keep hearing about but noone produces. Second Quantization (talk) 03:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - The subject passes WP:BASIC, upon a source review of those posted above by User:Dreadstar (not including the businesswire pr source). Northamerica1000(talk) 08:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.