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 delete. Mackensen (talk) 20:53, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Wilcock[edit]

David Wilcock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable occultist and peddler of fringe theories. Orange Mike | Talk 02:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Most search results are about different David Wilcocks. The subject is not significantly notable and the page's current references are poor. Meatsgains (talk) 02:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is no significant coverage of this person in reliable, independent sources. Other than the book sales listings, the current references are to credulous, fringe sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As the article creator, let me just begin by saying that I don't even remember starting this article and I don't even know who this is. Similar to the claim above, I think I may even be a different DRosenbach! :) But seriously, if he's on the NYT best sellers list, how can one refer to him as "non-notable." I'm no authority on David Wilcocks A vs David Wilcocks B, but I checked him up on Audiobooks and it appears to be the same guy -- correct me and the article if I am wrong. As it stands, I just don't see the argument for deleting this article. And if he's a peddler of fringe theories, we may not like him and we may want him censored or silenced, but again, this hardly seems grounds for deleting his article. He appears to be a quite notable person who writes books that are so popular that they appear on a list of popular books in one of the most prominent newspapers on the entire planet. And as for the poor references and poor coverage of this individual, it appears that those who complain are merely doubly charged with being bold. The solution to poorly structured and organized articles is to fix them, not to delete them. And I just checked the log for the first attempt at deletion -- nothing seems to have changed, so how can this be brought up again so soon. Maybe in 10 years he'll have disappeared into oblivion, but if he's still on the NYT best seller's list, I see this second attempt at cheating to form an agreeing consensus. Articles should be deleted by consensus of those espousing Wikipedia's virtues and values, not a consensus of subsets of people who want this article deleted. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply There is no consensus that every author of a book that reaches the NYT best seller list is inherently notable. Please read WP:NAUTHOR and provide references to independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage of this person. As for the previous debate, it closed as "no consensus" well over two years ago.There is nothing at all unusual about another deletion debate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete dearth of independent sources with significant discussion of this person. Jytdog (talk) 07:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nothing has changed since we last had this discussion, so I reproduce my argument here: This is a borderline case, and it may be that Wilcock will become notable in the future, but WP:AUTHOR here does not seem to be met, nor is he identified as notable per WP:FRINGEBLP. He has two books that sold well. He appears in the sensationalist media talking about spiritualism. Wait a few years and see if his Q-rating takes off and we can consider whether this WP:BLP should be included. Until then, it's best to remove this biography for falling just below the notability thresholds. jps (talk) 12:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Best-selling NYT author, multiple appearances on very notable Ancient Aliens tv show. This man is clearly notable within his community. Also, biased nom: "peddler of fringe theories". -- œ^™ 09:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there are no independent sources discussing the person, there is no way to write the article. The nom is not biased. It is a fact that David Wilcock promotes just about the most way out-on-a-limb ideas you can possibly discover. Until there is a notability rule at Wikipedia which states that WP:ANCIENT ALIENS appearances are notable, we'll just take your argument about his appearance on that show with its appropriate grain of salt. jps (talk) 10:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's biased. What he does should not be included as a reason for deletion. -- œ^™ 15:06, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • According to WP:PROFRINGE, WP:NFRINGE, WP:BLPFRINGE what a person does is absolutely relevant because the sourcing that needs to be done to determine notability of the person needs to be independent of the fringe theory being promoted. If the fringe nature of the ideas that are the main currency of the biography are not mentioned, commentators at other AfDs have historically gotten confused over what constitutes a reliable source and what does not. In this case, for example, I have been unsuccessful in locating any source that is outside of the epistemic closure of those extreme true-believers in pseudohistory. I find absolutely zero WP:MAINSTREAM sources that actually have commented on this guy's obviously fantastical proposals. And please understand that they are wholly fantastical. Unless there are serious sources that have evaluated his ideas (i.e., not fringe sources), Wikipedia is ill-equipped to be able to write a biography on a person who, with a straight face, advocates that the moon is a giant spaceship built by aliens from the planet Elektra who were exiled to Mars after a their planet exploded. The only biographies of fringe believers we should have on Wikipedia are those which are able to be sourced to independent sources. It is, frankly, surprising that a person with sysop rights would be oblivious to this consensus understanding of how notability should be judged in these cases. I am more than a little concerned. jps (talk) 17:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • You should have absolutely no concern with my ability to judge notability, which by the way has little to do with me be a sysop and the work I do as admin. I have a very good eye for notability, thank you. A subject's choice of occupation should absolutely not be included in any reason for deletion. Laugh at all his wacky theories you want, but he does have multiple independant coverage, of him in bios, but these sources are almost always found inside that fringe theories community which is itself notable mind you, and has its own independant reliable sources that can be used in an article that deals with this subject matter. Try finding anything outside of the paranormal/fringe theory community and of course you're going to find nothing but biased articles pooh-poohing him away. The fringe theories standards are too high, and I disagree with the relevant guidelines/policies, but I'm not going to waste my time getting stressed out over nothing when nothing will ever get done anyway. -- œ^™ 02:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, admitting that you are opposed to the content guideline is I guess fair enough. Usually that's not a winning argument in deletion discussions, but there are proud traditions of Wikipedians thumbing their noses at the rules, I guess. At this point, I would happily settle for any example of a "biased article" that pooh-poohed him away as a means to establish notability. jps (talk) 02:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. œ^™ 09:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no coverage in secondary sources. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it stands, that sourcing is unacceptably lacking in WP:RSes for a WP:BLP - and I say that thinking he's someone who should pass prima facie notability, per the "keep" opinions above ... but we can't have a BLP that isn't solidly backed up with RSes - David Gerard (talk) 23:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be clear, I'm surprised that we cannot find sources that satisfy WP:FRIND regarding this person as he has been making noise for the better part of 20 years about everything from channeling and (re)popularizing Edgar Cayce to Y2K to the face on Mars to 2012 doomsday. It seems that other fringe theorists have gotten all the attention for the various claims. The detractors I have found writing about him are all true believers! It's really strange. jps (talk) 23:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not meeting WP:AUTHOR and lacking independent RS coverage to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Superficial referenciness does not stand up to even cursory examination. Guy (Help!) 12:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - this is valuable information, wholly creditable, by a NOTABLE author. Those who wish to delete this Wiki entry have hostile attitudes towards new age concepts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.76.158.9 (talk) 17:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. 2nd nomination? It looks like some “editors” are either addicted, or obsessed on deletions. So, not really an “edition,” no? Supposedly deletion should be reserved exclusively to those parts whose contents have original research or illegal apologias. But being more objective what most matters to Wikipedia is that is easily verifiable that Wilcock is really notable. That said though, I simply don’t buy him. In my bias I see him just as a delusional guy or perhaps an artist of disinformation. Anyway is priceless to find a good site like Wikipedia where readers can have some background about him, just like I did. Anyway, FWIW as many other anemic articles and stubs in Wikipedia also this article must exist and should be expanded with details in which make it more complete and informative. Lignovitae (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would that we could, but alas, there does not seem to be any reliable sources written about this person. There are a lot of dubious sources written about him, of course, but nothing that I can find which would allow us to write a sufficiently neutral biography on the fellow (the current article is basically a paen to his supposed abilities which is doing the reader no good). If you can find some sources, please share them with us! jps (talk) 19:02, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not seeing the reliable, significant/in-depth, third-party coverage. Neutrality^talk 18:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm not seeing any real coverage in independent, reliable sources. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:34, 6 September 2016 (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.