Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon-Erik Beckjord (2nd 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. Davewild (talk) 08:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Jon-Erik Beckjord
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

I nominated this article for deletion back in December 2005 in the belief that the person was not notable. The person is now deceased. That fact does not itself make a person more or less notable, but it is still my belief that he was not and is not notable, and I think further evidence can be shown in that I find no non-Wikipedia references to him since from the time briefly after his death (which was, as far as I can see, only covered locally and not nationally). I think it's time to revisit the issue of whether the man actually was notable. My own opinion is delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Somehow the template isn't automatically linking the first discussion; here it is: Articles for deletion/Erik Beckjord
 * Keep There are additional sources available; for example, this book discusses him at some length. There are also lots of Google News Archive results that weren't available back in 2005:, , , , , etc. The article could use a reboot - things were different back in 2005 - but I don't think deletion is necessary. You can just stub it for right now if you want, and I'll get back to it later. Zagal e jo^^^ 05:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, how lost time is never found again. I personally would be very sad to see this article deleted, as one of the ones who dealt with Beckjord when he was editing Wikipedia way back when. Of course my personal feelings don't establish him as notable (or not notable), and our criteria has changed much since 2005. But I still feel that Beckjord is probably still notable by our current standards. This book, by anthropologist David J. Daegling and currently cited in the text, devotes a fair amount of space to Beckjord and his claims, as does Joshua Blu Buhs' book brought up by Zagalejo. Plus there's the news sources. It's due for a rewrite, but that's not a reason for deletion.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Additional sources cited above. It's certainly notable enough to keep IMHO. People who are into the Bigfoot scene know him and could benefit from the article. He was on Letterman so long ago, back in the '80s I think. I see no reason to delete. --DanielCD (talk) 18:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 13 January 2011 (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.