Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loren Coleman (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   snowball keep, 2nd AfD won't be different. - Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 10:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Loren Coleman
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Not a notable individual. Obviously WP:VANITY article. Fails WP:BIO. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It wasn't created as a vanity article, and it's not hopelessly bad. Worst case scenario, we can make it a stub. As demonstrated at the past AFD, there's plenty of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, so a good article is definitely possible. This guy is probably the most famous living proponent of cryptozoology. I've actually been planning on working on this page, but I've never got around to it.
 * Just wondering, did you look at the last AFD? You should at least make some effort to refer to the arguments presented there. Zagalejo^^^ 06:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ScienceApologist appears to be on a bit of a rapid fire spree, so my guess would be no. Artw (talk) 06:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions.  —Artw (talk) 06:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per previous AfD. Artw (talk) 06:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as per first AfD. Nothing's changed really, don't know why this was nominated the second time. --Ged UK (talk) 09:41, 20 February 2009 (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.