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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome Clark

[edit]

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

Reason Rationalthinker1 (talk) 00:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC) The subject of this articles fails to meat any real notability guidelines, his Encyclopaedia is self-published and any references are not from independent sources rather associated individuals[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 10. Snotbot t • c » 01:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think he is sufficiently notable. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, subject is clearly notable. Yworo (talk) 04:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~ Individual's article has reliable sources that ultimately corroborate notability. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 09:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the references are all smoke and mirrors, not really reputable or credible awards or references on close inspection, this is promotion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisellout (talk • contribs) 05:15, April 10, 2012 — Wikisellout (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep - A most interesting edit history. My sense is that this is a recognized expert in a specific field of study — whether we think it to be bunkum or not. Sufficient career achievement to merit encyclopedic biography. Carrite (talk) 17:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Flimsy deletion rationale. His books have been published by Touchstone, ABC-CLIO, Visible Ink Press, etc, and are available in many bookstores and libraries. A number of independent references are already cited in the article. Zagalejo^^^ 00:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is the focus of the article right? It seems his book The UFO Encyclopedia might have more claims to notability than he does. Much of the cited content refers to that. His biography section is unreferenced. Much of the current references in the article are of a poor nature. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many reviews do seem to exist for his other books, but I can only see the abstracts for most of them. Some basic details of his life can be sourced to his Contemporary Authors profile. Zagalejo^^^ 19:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to leave the reviews you found on the article talk page, perhaps others can get access to have a look. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are dozens of them, but I'll list some of them. Zagalejo^^^ 19:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He may be notable, but the shameless puffery in the lead cited to such marginal sources as "Saucer Smear" and "Magonia" needs to be toned down quite a bit. And later paragraphs employing moonstruck phrases such as, "Perhaps Clark's greatest accomplishment..." etc. indicate an article in need of some serious copyediting. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2012 (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.