Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Pope


 * 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.

Nick Pope
The result was '''unanimous snowball keep. Non admin closure. -- Terrillja talk  16:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)'''


 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article is written like a fan page. Only very recently got any outside third party sources at all, and those are not enough to establish notability per Wikipedia standards. I had prodded this, another supported the prod with, but prod was challenged with the claim that it was notable. Looking for broader input than just the page watchers. DreamGuy (talk) 01:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notability is established, and can be established further. Artw (talk) 02:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions.   —Artw (talk) 02:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep--the page is like a fan page, but there are at least two references (1. and 2., though 2. links to another article than is stated) that establish his notability since they do more than just mention him. Drmies (talk) 03:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's been fixed now, and a few more references added. IMHO "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" per WP:N has more than met (probably was met before the AFD, TBH) and I'm now just looking for sources to cite for specific claims, as well as doing a little bit of tidy up. Artw (talk) 05:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep--References are available to establish notability. The other concern can be fix by editing.--Jmundo (talk) 05:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep You should not delete even if there are few sources (so far). Notability established. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep/Expedited cleanup/Merge his subarticles.. The article's written like a masturbatory paean to the guy, but there's a scraping by amount of notability. Article needs pruning and paring down, but if the articles on his books are merged, there will be sufficient content for the one article. ThuranX (talk) 07:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Very well known in the UK. Plenty of coverage demonstrated by a Google News search, and he has also had a lot of TV exposure.--Michig (talk) 09:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Plenty of sources discussing Pope & his work. JulesH (talk) 13:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Decent sources and notable, needs improving though. Andy (talk) 13:18, 1 January 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.