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The result was keep or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Keel[edit]

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

A journalist who seems to fail WP:BIO. Doesn't seem to have all that much acclaim nor are there any awards, distinctions, or third-party sources written about him. jps (talk) 16:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've all convinced me! Thanks for the help. jps (talk) 23:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because of the lengthy article in The Daily Telegraph in the UK following the death of this American. Move that article from "external links" to a reference. This reliable source establishes his notability. It seems that a film starring Richard Gere was based on his work. A fringe figure to be sure, but appears notable to me. Cullen328 (talk) 17:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. More precise searches than the ones linked in the nomination (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) lead to many reliable sources. Just checking the news sources finds the Daily Telegraph coverage mentioned above, this piece in the Skeptical Inquirer and this extensive article explaining that Keel was a pioneer in his branch of pseudoscience. That's easily enough to demonstrate notability, and I haven't even looked at the hundreds of book and academic journal sources yet. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - famous and significant author of books on the paranormal. Ergative rlt (talk) 03:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and keep scrupulously maintained with material limited to independent, reliable sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:33, 28 December 2010 (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.