- 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Jenny Randles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
This person is not notable, simply has not risen to the level of notability we require for biographies. No third-party, independent reliable sources can be used to verify any of the information in this article. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British UFO Research Association ScienceApologist (talk) 18:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Its a good article, it is notable within the industry involving UFOs. It is well referenced too, I want to keep it. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 18:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a UFO industry? No wonder people keep seeing these things: they're being pumped out by an industry! Seriously, though, we need notability outside of the fringe field if we are going to keep the article. See the guideline I linked to for more. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also it is nearly notable as an article can come becuase she was formerly a high ranking employee of British UFO Research Association, which has its own page. I really dont think this is the article to delete. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 18:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you point to the section of WP:BIO which says a "high ranking employee of a UFO research association" is notable? In any case, thanks for pointing out another article of dubious notability. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please dont be smart, when I say industry I mean the people and places affiliated with UFOs and the like. Also she is former director of investigations, which obviously is quite a high rank. This is referenced as well, [1]. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 13:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, do I have to point out where it says it in BIO? No of course I dont, anyone with half a brain working can understand that someone who is head of an organisation which is obviously notable due to it having its own article, is notable. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 13:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, she is notable for the fact of her being an author, look at the amount of books that she has published, that counts alone. Books Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 13:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep one of Britain's leading Ufologists - has a regular column in the Fortean Times, has written an awful lot of books and appears as an expert on documentaries [2] (Emperor (talk) 19:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- Keep She has an entry in Gale's Contemporary Authors, which by itself is good enough for me. (I can't link to it, but I'm sure someone else can verify that it's there.) Her books can be found in hundreds of libraries [3], and she has been described by the Austin American-Statesman as "one of Britain's leading UFOlogists". At ProQuest, there are abstracts of book reviews (both unfavorable and favorable) from Booklist, School Library Journal, The Times Literary Supplement, Geographical, and (for what it's worth) New Scientist. In addition, her "Oz factor" theory (which used to have its own article here) has an independent entry in this specialist reference book and is discussed in a few others, such as Jerome Clark's generally evenhanded Unexplained! The Jenny Randles article really isn't that badly written; outside of the "sex change" section, most of the details are just basic facts about her books. Zagalejo^^^ 00:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sufficient sources for notability, & the holdings of the books support it. . We do not need people working of fringe subjects to be notable outside their field, any more than we need footballers to be notable outside of football, or politicians outside of politics. DGG (talk) 05:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Clearly notable. --Michig (talk) 06:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Well know successful author. Methinks the nominator has an alternative agenda after looking at his user page. Personally I think this move smells of vandalism. --Factorylad (talk) 13:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Popular and prolific author. Anyone interested in UFOs, skeptic or believer, in Britain has read a book by her. Nick mallory (talk) 11:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.