Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip Coppens (author)


 * 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. Ignoring all of the arguments regarding the veracity of the man's claims, in the space between the nomination and today, the article's subject has met the following critiera:

Notability of Creative Professionals - His contributions to the Nexus magazine, a notable and major publication aimed at a fringe audience, assert notability both within the "fortean community" and without. On this point he meets the criteria set out in point 2.

By point 4 of creative professionals, and point 1 of entertainers, his extensive work on Ancient Aliens also asserts notability.

As for general notability, the subject has authored multiple books (all but The Cryptogram of Rennes-le-Chateau: A Guide to an Enigmatic Village and Killing Kennedy: Uncovering the Truth Behind the Kennedy Assassination appearing to have been published by fringe but independent publishers, with some media coverage for all (though especially The Ancient Alien Question: A New Inquiry into the Existence, Evidence, and Influence of Ancient Visitors as it relates to his television career). The subject has also been cited as an expert in their field in publications by other authors and has been the subject of media attention with regards to the impact of his work.

(Though only a minor contributor to notability, his obituary on the extraordinarily notable and influential show, Coast to Coast, should make a modest impact on claims to the notability of the subject and their work) PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Philip Coppens (author)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable author. References cited include one obituary and his official website. No indication of importance and no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment He died on 30 December 2012, so a lack of obituaries is unsurprising at this point. The article was created today. It is too early to tell. There are ongoing discussions on WP:BLPN and WP:FTN. Mathsci (talk) 19:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Not sure if he is "non-notable", I found lots of Wikipedia articles (even the Socrates article...) who is using his website (and etc?) as a source, you can see those articles here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Philip_Coppens_%28author%29 ... The Philip Coppens article was only created yesterday, I'm pretty sure with few more edits from other contributors, the article will be ok. --Hydao (talk) 20:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. I decided to search for "Phillip Coppens" (double L, a mistake of course) and found two more Wiki articles that mention his name or website: Mona Island of the Druids and Chinese pyramids. In my opinion there are too many Wikipedia articles using his "stuff". Even if he is/was "non-notable" in real life, he must be a little bit special here on Wikipedia lol. --Hydao (talk) 21:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment You need to show he meets WP:AUTHOR - so far there's no evidence for it. His use here could just show editors pushing him - and I think you are probably right, too many articles using him as a source in cases where he isn't a reliable source. Dougweller (talk) 21:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - Isn't this sufficiently notable? (now I'm not even including all those Wikipedia articles that mention him/uses his website as a source)
 * "Philip Coppens is an author and investigative journalist, ranging from the world of politics to ancient history and mystery. He co-hosts The Spirit Revolution radio show with his wife Kathleen McGowan and is a frequent contributor to Nexus (magazine) and Atlantis Rising Magazine. Since 1995, he has lectured extensively and has appeared in a number of television and DVD documentaries, including Ancient Aliens: The Series (The History Channel). He is the author of 11 English-language books, including The Stone Puzzle of Rosslyn Chapel, The New Pyramid Age, Servants of the Grail, Killing Kennedy, The Cryptogram of Rennes-le-Château, The Ancient Alien Question and The Lost Civilization Enigma."
 * There are too many information and interviews, I need time to read it more carefully. Also, you said "His use here could just show editors pushing him", I'm not so sure about this "pushing" thing... Meanwhile I have to leave Wikipedia/Internet for now (real life heh), hope someone can improve the page decently in the coming hours/days. --Hydao (talk) 22:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep for now - There are articles that should be deleted right after creation, but I don't think this is one of them. I would like to give it a month or two to see what improvements and sources are added. Right now it's a marginal keep IMO. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This article is extremely incomplete and inaccurate. He is Belgian, not American -- after he and Ms. McGowan were married, he was refused a visa to enter the United States (this from her Facebook page) because of a previous conviction for hacking another researcher's computer. Tenorlove (talk) 01:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)tenorlove
 * That is not a valid reason for deletion; see WP:RUBBISH. The remedy for an incomplete and inaccurate article is cleanup, not deletion. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:AUTHOR "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.", "The person is a significant contributor to, a subject of, or used as an expert source by major news agencies or publications"
 * http://www.justenergyradio.com/archive-pages/pcoppens.htm, it says: If there is one thing that sets Coppens apart from other writers, it is that he is often ahead of the trends. He wrote the first guide in more than four decades about Rosslyn Chapel – the only one to do so before The Da Vinci Code made that Scottish chapel world famous in 2003. He also researched the origins of the Mitchell-Hedges Crystal Skull, before the 2008 Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull movie, resulting in a series of controversial articles, which even came to the attention of The Washington Post.
 * https://plus.google.com/115831566115996825377/about, Yes, he is from Belgium and it seems that he lived in the US as well. --Hydao (talk) 09:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * One more link with useful info: http://www.jasoncolavito.com/1/post/2012/12/in-memoriam-philip-coppens-1971-2012.html
 * Your link to www.justenergyradio.com/ - a very minor fringe site - makes me lean towards delete. If that's the best you can do, he's not notable enough for us as he isn't meeting WP:AUTHOR. Dougweller (talk) 11:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it's not the best I can do, it was just a random site that appeared on Google, as I said there are many sites, time is needed. --Hydao (talk) 11:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Look folks, we have an editor who says that he needs some time to address these issues. I say give him and anyone else who wants to improve the article two or three months and then revisit this. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Looks pretty dodgy to me. Any article that has such a paucity of references that it needs to quote a Facebook page as an external link is questionable, in my opinion. Of course, I might change my vote if it is shown that there are better sources.  Deb (talk) 12:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If it helps, here's a review of one of his books from the website of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Link. As things currently sit, I'm not sure there's enough here to support an article, but there are at least some signs of notability, and given the recency of his death, I wouldn't be surprised if a few other RSes show up over the next couple of days. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, that newspaper seems to be notable enough, so I suppose there's a case for him. I haven't changed my mind as yet though. Deb (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If he is non-notable and "useless", then maybe all these links should be removed from Wikipedia I guess? I didn't read his books (will do in the future) but he appeared in all (or maybe 90%) Ancient Aliens episodes, he sure is notable on his area (Ancient astronauts, ETC). --Hydao (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * His TV appearances should be mentioned in the article, as they would add to the argument for notability. Deb (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Coming round to a Keep now. Deb (talk) 10:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 20:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 20:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 20:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - but needs improvement - Prolific writer. Looks to have published several works and many articles, with one that was scheduled to be published this year. His obituary has yet to be published, and that usually reveals lots of bio details. So the materials are there for anyone willing or available to put time in expanding it. -- Auric 20:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep – I do not know if he can be used as a reliable source for anything but pseudoscience, but in his field he is widely published. (While we are at it, someone should write the article on Jüri Lina.) -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Advocates of fringe theories can be notable, even if their theories are fringe. See Erich von Däniken. This author seems to have appeared on the History Channel numerous times and has written numerous (albeit wacky) books. Killing it the article just as it's being started seems like an over-broad approach to the problem of fringe-theory creep on the wiki. It's a genuine problem, but the solution is not to whitewash the existence of the advocates of these theories.  I think User:Guy Macon, User:Deb, User: Auric and User: Petri Krohn have got the right approach. David in DC (talk) 11:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Some recent attempts to fix the article have been reverted as copyright vios. If so (I haven't checked) sobeit. Hoever, the reversion edit summaries also say that repairs to the article should be done in the sandbox.  That's nonsense, and seems almost designed to frustrate the editor trying to do the work to improve the article. The AfD template itself counsels that improvements can be made during the pendency of the AfD. David in DC (talk) 11:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that meant work on the copyvio in a sandbox. However, we don't allow that. We don't allow copyvio at all and I've reverted the latest addition. See also WP:Close paraphrase. I'm surprised no one has yet found sources for notability. I'd !vote keep if those were found. Dougweller (talk) 12:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep (1) Science doesn't always proceed rationally. See Wiki article on Paul Feyerabend - "In his view, science would benefit most from a 'dose' of theoretical anarchism."  (2)  Although an alternative researcher, Coppens' work is well researched, well-written and widely published. He has proposed several original and potentially falsifiable theories. For both these reasons I would keep the page. Synuge (talk) 00:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC) — Synuge (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep This is my first comment at Wikipedia, so apologies for any misunderstandings.  The suggestion to delete this page, of an author I consider highly notable, reinforces the strong impression I have that Wikipedia is too influenced by people who are bigoted against new ideas.  Vale Philip Coppens.  Robert Tulip  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.200.166.13 (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)   — 180.200.166.13 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete - Just not seeing the multiple, independent reliable sources giving non-trivial coverage we would need to have in order to justify an article. Appearing on TV shows about fringe topics alone does not cut it. Self-publishing some books does not cut it. Editors here arguing that the article is new and thus should be kept while we wait for things to pan out have it exactly backward: it should be deleted now, and if sources to support an article ever appear *then* it can then be recreated. DreamGuy (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete I have a lot of respect for some of the keep !voters, but so far none of them have come up with sources that meet WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR and the decision should be made on the basis of our criteria for notability on the article as it stands now. The very fact that none of them have been able to find sources is part of the reason that I've decided to !vote at all. As DreamGuy says, delete now per our guidelines with no prejudice for recreation later if sources are found. I realise that the delete !votes are outnumbered, but hopefully this decision will be made on the basis of our guidelines (and please, 'no consensus' shouldn't apply here as that would be - in my opinion, saying our guidelines can be broken on the hope that someone will someday provide sources. The reason AfDs take a week is to allow sources to be found. If they aren't being found, that suggests they may not be there. Dougweller (talk) 08:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment So help me out here delete voters. A book review is a valid secondary source, correct? There are numerous book reviews available. If I start citing some of these will that help? Thanks Synuge (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Read WP:AUTHOR "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." But they'd have to be mainstream sources and in more detail than the Seattle review. I don't think his books can be seen as significant without discussion of them in mainstream sources. Dougweller (talk) 18:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Seattle reviewI looked as this short review more closely. It seemed a bit strange that it accepted Coppens statements uncritically and then I noted it is from Blogcritics - ok so far, but the author has no qualifications to make such comments. And once you take away the title and author, you've got about 155 words. Dougweller (talk) 18:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment But what about contributions to the Darklore Series, Ancient Aliens (surely counts as mainstream - this is the History Channel), Nexus magazine as well as numerous other book reviews (e.g ? As an aside I really believed that Wikipedia dreamed of being a Borgesian hyperreality and not just an equivalent to the Encyclopedia Britannica online.Synuge (talk) 20:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete I would have to agree with Dougweller. The basic problem is the continued absence of independent secondary sources giving biographical details, book reviews, etc. Mathsci (talk) 09:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as above. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC).
 * Delete: He is a non-notable author. Sources aren't reliable and independent! Samuel petan (talk) 13:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - I second Doug and agree that it appears he doesn't meet GNG for Authors at this point. SarahStierch (talk) 00:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Request This says he was buried on January 8th in LA. Please keep this open at least until the 15th.  If no obits show up in genuinely reliable sources by then, I'll be persuaded he's not notable even though I think the History Channel appearances and numerous books make him notable in the dictionary sense of that word.  Waddya say? David in DC (talk) 13:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Frontier Publishing: http://www.frontierpublishing.nl/log.htm ... http://frontierworld.nl/publishing/?s=coppens&searchsubmit= --Hydao (talk) 13:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 14:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment David in DC, part of the problem in this AfD is that people are using the dictionary sense of the word and ignoring our criteria for notability, which aren't the same as the dictionary sense. A large number of books doesn't show notability, it just shows an ability to write a lot and find a publisher. And it isn't as though he finds mainstream publishers either, as Hydao has just shown above with a link to another Adventure Press book. Dougweller (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I get it. But, as Guy Macon said, some articles require deletion upon creation. I concur. Especially where BLP is involved.  But this is a dead guy.  He was buried yesterday.  If there aren't sufficient obits from reliable sources within a week of his burial, I'll concede he's not wikinotable. I'm not arguing for the redifinition of WP:N.  I'm just arguing that this guy seems a helluva lot more like Erik Von Dainiken than like your friendly neighborhood conspiracy nut.  The Ancient Astronauts appearances and the number of books he put out suggest to me that there ARE wiki-reliable sources out there. I concede they're hard to find online.  I imagine they'll be easier to find online in the week after he's been buried.  It's not a BLP.  There's no hurry. David in DC (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't buy the "wait and see" argument. One doesn't usually have to wait until someone drops dead to validate notability with obituaries.  Significant coverage in reliable sources should already be present and apparent.  --  Wikipedical (talk) 07:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's better redirecting the page to Ancient Aliens for a while, instead of deleting it. --Hydao (talk) 08:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Agree with User:Mathsci's " absence of independent secondary sources" comment. NickCT (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - there are a lot of problematic questions associated with this. I have been waiting and hoping for the article to be improved, but, despite the support above, no one seems to feel very moved to do much about this.  A few points that trouble/interest me:
 * 1) It seems fairly clear he is not notable on the basis of his self-published books alone. Merely having your books reviewed doesn't convey notability.  In fact, the small number of reviews quoted suggests the opposite.
 * 2) Although I have doubts about the reliability of Nexus magazine, it seems to be notable and to have a wide readership. Whether that makes Coppens notable depends largely on how long he has been writing for them and how many articles he has written.  This is not clear from the article.
 * 3) His wife is notable, but I'm not sure how notable. Potentially this could convey a degree of notability on him, especially if the story of their marriage attracted media attention.
 * 4) His TV appearances could make him notable depending on how many episodes of "Ancient Aliens" he's appeared in and how big an audience they've had. Unfortunately no one has added any information about this to the article.  Deb (talk) 15:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment We need to keep arguments within Wikipedia's rules on notability instead of personal ideas. For example, his wife being notable would in no way argue for or against this article existing. It is a firmly established principle of notability rules here that notability is not inherited. At best, deciding that she's notable would mean you could maybe have info about him on *her* article, assuming it is notable enough to her life to be mentioned there and has reliable sources, *not* that a separate article makes sense. We don't create articles for the spouse (or any or every other relative) of every notable person who has an article. DreamGuy (talk) 02:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I would cite Coleen Rooney as an example that tests that rule - read the intro to her article. However, I'm guessing that Ms McGowan in no way equals Mr Rooney in notability! Deb (talk) 10:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, this notability thing is very subjective. About the 4, he appeared in all (or 90%) of episodes. I have no idea about the audience, but well, the facebook page has almost 300.000 fans, I guess it says something? Giorgio A. Tsoukalos wrote THIS hours ago. I'm against the deletion of the page, merging seems reasonable for now. --Hydao (talk) 15:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Having 300,000 Facebook fans means only that he has a bunch of Facebook fans, not that he is notable enough to have his own article in an encyclopedia. Hell, it doesn't even mean he actually has that many fans, as a number of people pay for fake friends to make themselves look more popular than they really are. DreamGuy (talk) 02:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I was talking about the Ancient Aliens series, not the person. I just hope that a "reliable" (erm...) source appears as soon as possible, I don't feel like wasting my time with this subject anymore. In my opinion he's notable enough to "deserve" a English Wiki page, hell, and I'm not even his fan. RIP. --Hydao (talk) 03:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Further, is Wikipedia not known as the people's encyclopaedia? No-one who uses Wikipedia expects the Encyclopaedia Britannica, nor should they. As a people-built record for other people, Wikipedia ought to take more care over the individuals that are proposed as being important to its users. Having accepted this article in the first place, Wikipedia now has a duty to improve, not delete it. Regardless of the nature of the man's work. In fact, if we examine the thrust of Wikipedia's argument for a moment, then if Philip Coppens' biography is up for deletion on the basis of a decision as to the quality of his work, then why are the eleven separate Wikipedia lists relating to the exploits of the models of "Playboy" not under similar scrutiny? Surely their "work" is also, at best, "fringe". Wikipedia, if it wishes to ever be taken seriously, must treat every article equally rather than apply a selective and pretentious set of "standards" unevenly across those articles which its core team consider 'not interesting enough'. - I disagreed with much of the man's work, but I'd read anything of his work over that of a "Playmate" any day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.143.233 (talk • contribs) 15:00, January 12, 2013 — 86.46.143.233 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep. Notable nut-cases should be covered by Wikipedia.  I'm not convinced by the argument about lack of mainstream sources.  He didn't move in the mainstream, he moved in the fringe world, so it is hardly surprising that obituaries appeared on lots of fan sites and not in the NYT.  I don't see any good purpose that would be served by deleting his article.  Zerotalk 03:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't mistake a lack of mainstream sources for a lack of reliable sources. Fan sites are certainly not neutral nor verifiable.  This article should be deleted because it fails policy– no one's arguing that its deletion is a "good purpose."  --  Wikipedical (talk) 03:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You are the one making mistakes. First, nobody is suggesting that fan sites be used to provide materials for the article, so their neutrality or reliability is irrelevant. The fact that a large number of fan sites have posted obituaries of this person proves that in some circles he was notable.  Second, WP:AUTHOR is a guideline, not a policy. There is definitely no policy requiring the deletion of this article. Zerotalk 04:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Verifiability. --  Wikipedical (talk) 05:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Almost all the argument for deletion so far has been on the basis of notability, so that's what I addressed. No proper case has been made on the basis of adequate source existence. If it is decided that the stuff he has done like publish books, appear on TV shows, and have his own radio show are sufficient evidence of notability, then finding reliable sources for those facts should not be a problem. For a start, library and publishers' catalogues are sufficient to establish the publication details of books. Zerotalk 07:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Frequent contributor to popular television series Ancient Aliens.  Has been the featured speaker at several public speaking events in North America and Europe.  He is a notable person to many who do believe in Ancient Astronaut theory and deletion of his wikipedia entry amounts to silencing a proponent of a belief system.  The simple fact that most of his work is considered to be "fringe" and "nut-job" by the mainstream is hardly cause for deletion.  You will be hard pressed to find a "reliable" (since that would be coming from the mainstream) source given that his life's work was devoted to disproving the mainstream.  Deletion would be no less than censorship.  Ruiner(talk) 03:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC) — 67.168.138.84 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep. Ancient Aliens Season 5 Episode 4, "Destination Orion" aired on Friday, January 11, 2012 on H2. The end of the episode wrote "In Memoriam Phillip Coppens 1971-2012."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.215.0.165 (talk) 05:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC) — 98.215.0.165 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 12 January 17.30hrs GMT approx. Keep but make improvements. - Several good points here already. On top of which, mis-spellings and variants, particularly "Phillip" and "Filip" appear not to have been weighed-up sufficiently. It must also be considered that as a regular personality of the "Ancient Aliens" production, which only this week announced his death via their "in memoriam" there is likely to be far more chatter with regards to his death in the coming days (obituaries etc). Viewer-ship figures for the show also suggest a deep interest in this area which should not be dismissed so easily. Lest we forget, virtually all cosmology was in its day considered "fringe" which lets face it, in this day and age is more or less shorthand for "dismiss this it's bull". If this article gets deleted purely on the basis of his Science not being mainstream, will you then also delete everything on Astrology and Theology? - How about your article on Father Christmas? - While we know that he is a macroscopic quantum object, surely if a flesh and blood man can't have his biography kept after he is not around to defend himself, then surely you'll be deleting Father Christmas too? No? I say develop this article. It clearly was good enough when first proposed to put up. What's different now? Also, deleting is liable to encourage conspiracy theories far more and does no good for the transparency reputation of Wikipedia.
 * Comment: Filip is his birth name, not a misspelling.-- Auric    talk  18:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Have ammended - thanks for the help! Good to know as one affected, that the Wikipedia community at least supports its aphasic users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.143.233 (talk • contribs) 15:54, January 12, 2013


 * Rescue? Please review these edits to see if they constitute sufficient WP:RESCUE to justify shutting this AfD down, at least for the time being. David in DC (talk) 02:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Even with those additions, he lacks notability and significant coverage in reliable sources. Appearing on a webcast or mentions on a website do not fulfill WP:GNG.--Wikipedical (talk) 05:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * KDKA (AM), the CBS radio affiliate in Pittsburgh, was the very first commercial radio station in American history. A half-hour interview on KDKA is just about the furthest thing from a podcast one might imagine. David in DC (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. David in DC (talk) 02:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Added citations to Intrepid Magazine's January 2013 print edition, which published a eulogy for Coppens. Added an external link to a longer piece on the Intrepid Mag blog. Considering his area of expertise, i.e. malarkey, you have to look hard. But with the interview on KDKA (AM), the eulogy in Intrepid Magazine, and his appearances on the History Channel series, it's getting harder to see any question about WP:GNG, WP:RS and WP:N. Being careful about presenting fringe science as what it is --- understandable. Relegating notable popularizers of said hokum to obscurity --- not so much. David in DC (talk) 21:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * None of those things comes close to meeting WP:GNG. At all. Intrepid magazine is some online blog site with multiple unknown people contributing to it. It is not notable. It doesn't have a Wikipedia article of its own, and doesn't qualify for one. You say it's in the print edition, but the homepage for the so-called magazine says it is digital only, so there is no print edition. I don't know if you were ignorant of that or trying to mislead people here. There are no independent reliable sources giving non trivial coverage to make it or Philip Coppens notable. I know people who want something to happen grasp at straws to try to justify it, but you aren't even coming close to something that meets Wikipedia criteria. DreamGuy (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not a supporter of fringe science but the cemetery where he's buried is a valid source for Coppens' birth and death dates. He was interned at Forest Lawn Memorial Park, Glendale (which is notable, having it's own wikipedia article).  They published his obituary which, even though is's hosted on tributes.com, you can find it from the Forest Lawn service search page.-    &#x0288;  u coxn \talk ) 00:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Dream Guy: Please review this page a little more carefully. One can hold a copy of the January issue in one's hand. If you scroll down just a wee bit from where you read, you'll find this:"CURRENT ISSUE: January 2013 This issue of Intrepid Mag is the FIRST EVER print issue. All subscribers received the issue digitally, but it is also available here to purchase as the COLLECTIBLE PARADIGM SYMPOSIUM 2012 Program Issue."
 * We disagree. In my view, the appearances on the History Channel series, the half-hour interview on KDKA (AM), and the Eulogy in the print edition of Intrepid Magazine make this a slam-dunk on WP:N. You think the opposite. But the choice you give our peers with the false dichotomy in this sentence "I don't know if you were ignorant of that or trying to mislead people here" stretch the bounds of civil debate to the breaking point. I may be wrong. I'm neither ignorant nor trying to mislead people. David in DC (talk) 11:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Added ref to one book for which he was principal researcher and another to which he contributed a chapter: . David in DC (talk) 20:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. This one surprised me: upon reading the article, I thought it'd be an easy "Keep" !vote, as pseudoscience with a following.  However, a number of Google searches, using ("philip coppens" OR "filip coppens") with other keywords, including such as "debunk" and "skeptic" to see if I could find evidence that he'd been noticed by James Randi et al., turned up nothing but Coppens's own website and lots of blogs and the like: nothing suggestive of coverage by the mainstream media.  Since there's been plenty of time for obituaries to run by now, I tried a Google News and Google News Archives search for ("philip coppens" "died"); this got me nothing.  Since he died in L.A., I tried searching the L.A. Times website for (coppens); I got a single article, mentioning a fashion designer named Tim Coppens.  Right now, I conclude that he fails WP:SIGCOV.
 * Some data that I wasn't able to find might sway my !vote. First, I wasn't able to come up with a paid circulation for Intrepid.  If it's sufficiently large, I'd give more weight to his participation in their symposium.  Second, all we have about Coppens and Ancient Aliens is a statement, sourced to IMDB, that he appeared in 16 episodes.  We don't know how significant his role was in these: was he interviewed at length on several of them, or were these appearances nothing but passing mentions?  If he can be documented as receiving significant air time, I'd be inclined to change to a "keep".  Ammodramus (talk) 22:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - Giorgio A. Tsoukalos last post: https://www.facebook.com/giorgiotsoukalosfans/posts/10151334153392270 ... "As the consulting producer I was given the privilege to suggest potential experts in the field and I immediately threw Filip’s name into the ring." ... not sure if it can prove Coppens' "significant role". But well, I watched all the episodes, and all I can say is... yes, truly significant. --Hydao (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And also... sourced to IMDB, that he appeared in 16 episodes., I think it's incomplete. It is more than 16... --Hydao (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Added yet another ref, this time from The Guardian (Nigeria). David in DC (talk) 03:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That reference, like many that have been added, are about other topics with merely brief mentions of Coppens. Those types of articles do not qualify as "significant coverage" of the topic at hand, which is Philip Coppens.  --  Wikipedical (talk) 05:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep He has a notable career, and I found book reviews for one of his novels already which would make it pass notability requirements for Wikipedia should anyone want to bother creating it. There are reliable sources covering him and his work.   D r e a m Focus  21:45, 18 January 2013 (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.