Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stan Gooch


 * 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   no consensus. Cirt (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Stan Gooch

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

No indication of notability in reliable sources. Only one news story mentions this author (link} and reviews of his books seem limited to forums and self-publishing websites. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:FRINGE. Bearian (talk) 00:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, ugh. Vanity too. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to be a notable fringe theorist. There's a lot of hits at Gbooks  and once you get past the first page and a half, most appear to be other authors referring to Gooch and his theories. Edward321 (talk) 23:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please be specific. Which sources do you think establish notability? Tim Vickers (talk) 15:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually this source looks a good reliable source by a reputable publisher that discusses Gooch specifically. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * For starters being published by Duke University . He's also referenced in this book originally from Indiana university.  Edward321 (talk) 23:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. I almost nominated this for deletion myself, but he does have a lot of hits on Google Books aside from his own work. I don't know how many of them count as reliable sources. As it is full of more kookery than I can bear to write about, I'm going to call in the assistance of the ARS. We might be able to salvage a stub out of the sources at Google Books, but I'll argue for deletion if we can't source it adequately. Fences and windows (talk) 23:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Question  - what are the primary sources for his books? I would support the above EM consciousness page, but here the paranormal thing should have some value beyond fiction or fantasy to present it as science. I don't know what notability criteria there are for pop fiction writers but if the article makes statements about this as being science the primary sources he uses would seem to be important. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 00:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep But clean-up. These at Google scholar, 30 book attributions showing he has authored them. For rewriting maybe start with these 35+ searchable online books refercing him]. -- Banj e  b oi   12:21, 16 June 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.