Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K. Paul Johnson


 * 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) 22:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

K. Paul Johnson

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Little known author who has written on Theosophical matters. A problem with trying to find reliable sources. None can be found. Does not appear to be notable. Goblin Face (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: I actually am finding reviews of his stuff and I'm also finding evidence to show that he's fairly influential in his field- especially his Edgar Cayce book. I'm still searching, but we do have at least three reviews in reliable sources (two of which are in peer-reviewed journals) for his work which is making me lean towards a keep. I'll continue to look, though. Tokyogirl79  (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm finding a LOT of reviews in Google Scholar that aren't showing up in JSTOR or the other places. I'm also seeing his work frequently cited in various texts. (see below)


 * 1) SMOLEY, R. "THE MASTERS REVEALED-BLAVATSKY AND THE MYTH OF THE GREAT WHITE LODGE-JOHNSON, KP." (1995): 102.
 * 2) Ferris, J. "K. Paul Johnson, The Masters Revealed: Madame Blavatsky and the Myth of the Great White Lodge." INTELLIGENCE AND NATIONAL SECURITY 11 (1996): 176-178.
 * 3) Constructing Tradition by Brill Academic Pub
 * 4) extensively mentioned by the The New York Review of Books


 * These reviews and mentions, paired with the ones already in the article, do show that Johnson passes notability guidelines. It's not the easiest search I performed, but I did find enough to justify notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There are several more articles on the Bio talk Page. If he is notable enough, then we need to be sure that his page doesn't get attacked again. Is that possible? He gets hit by Theosophists (followers of Blavatskyism) pretty often. JEMead (talk) 20:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll keep the page on my watch list and if it gets terribly bad, we can always do varying degrees of protection on the page that would keep IPs and/or very new users from editing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. This writer is definitely notable, indisputably an authority on the occult. This review of one of his books in The New York Times is a very strong source, which is provided in the article. Material from two of his books is discussed in this article featured in the prestigious The New York Review of Books. By performing a Google web search on Paul Johnson occult, I found several books that make references to him, which further proves his notability beyond any doubt; for example, The Dawn of the New Cycle: Point Loma Theosophists and American Culture by W. Michael Ashcraft here, Theosophical Enlightenment by Joscelyn Godwin, here, among others. Johnson is called "a most valiant researcher" in this article. The article should be improved, not deleted. Dontreader (talk) 05:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. Seems like there are enough sources to justify an article. It seems borderline, AUTHOR seems to ask for a little more than what has been presented so far. Given the difficulty of finding sources, I'm guessing some more will be forthcoming. I haven't found much yet myself but my efforts have been limited. - - MrBill3 (talk) 12:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep there's enough to keep; articles about relatively obscure scholars are useful.ShulMaven (talk) 16:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, I think this is borderline. I somewhat started this discussion, wanting to delete the Bio, but people have made a good case. In light of this, I added some articles he wrote for Gnosis and Theosophical History (an academic journal). Paul wanted the Bio deleted mostly because maintenance slacked (bashing on the Masters Revealed, again), and he did not think he was much above a minor author. However in certain obscure circles, he is somewhat famous. Since this is Fringe anyway, keeping makes sense. JEMead (talk) 07:09, 5 November 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.