Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Wilcock


 * 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   no consensus. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 08:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

David Wilcock

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Spiritualism author with a best-selling book but no real mention outside the field. Sources of biographical info are basically nonexistent. Mangoe (talk) 18:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Reluctant borderline keep - sources are puffed-up, but NYT #8 author is clearly notable - David Gerard (talk) 16:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Spent ages looking, there's no reliable references that can be found. Goblin Face (talk) 09:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is a borderline case, and it may be that Wilcock will become notable in the future, but WP:AUTHOR here does not seem to be met, nor is he identified as notable per WP:FRINGEBLP. He has two books that sold well. He appears in the sensationalist media talking about spiritualism. Wait a few years and see if his Q-rating takes off and we can consider whether this WP:BLP should be included. Until then, it's best to remove this biography for falling just below the notability thresholds. jps (talk) 12:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * keep because there are an adequate number of fools who buy his nonsense to push him over the bar on simple sales figures. However this article needs careful watching that it doesn't become a soapbox for unsupportable theorising.
 * We already have at least one article The Law of One (Ra material) (also at AfD and DRV) where that pile of inventive craziness seems to rest largely on citing David Wilcock as RS for that article. This is where it really begins to not belong on WP: shifting product as a book factory does not make you a fount of wisdom. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. He is prominently featured as a commentator in at least six episodes of the American TV show Ancient Aliens. Though the program is considered by many to be absolute woo, it IS a prominent show and he IS a prominently featured participant. (Just because you don't see his appearances in a Google search, doesn't mean he lacks verifiable notability.) Lou Sander (talk) 03:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 13:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  07:23, 3 July 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.