Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Cook

Nick Cook

Nick Cook (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)

Vanity articles / fails GNG - This article is sourced to one reference - a book review of Cook's one and only book in The Atlantic. The external links section contains a couple more book reviews of the same book, and a bio on the conspiracy radio show Coast to Coast AM. A very thorough search for RS has found only articles bylined by this reporter, and reviews of his one book. We've had an additional citations needed tag up for 3 years without resolution. BlueSalix (talk) 12:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 November 23. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 12:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 13:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Few secondary sources discuss him as a book author. His "Zero point" book is actually more notable than he is. But he seems to be an oft-quoted defense industry expert [1]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep Using the links previously in the article and a bit of Googling I've been able to restore the structure of the article from before the content blanking with decent citations, and I believe that it could be fleshed out further - taking care to properly cite to avoid BLP concerns of course. I believe there is sufficient coverage that WP:N is not a problem and that between the Jane's editorship, the documentaries and current business endeavors there are grounds for bio article rather than an article on the Zero Point book. Artw (talk) 08:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

As an author, subject does not meet our WP:AUTHOR criteria. Subject does not meet GNG. As a journalist, he is a freelancer for a small trade pub. As a businessman he is CEO of what appears to be a one-man company. Journalists will, inherent to their profession, have wide RS due to bylines. This does not establish notability, otherwise the police beat reporter at the Santa Barbara News-Press would have a BLP. I appreciate you appear to be very interested in paranormal and woo-woo topics, like Jim B. Tucker and the Bosnian Pyramids, however, we have objective standards for notability. BlueSalix (talk) 10:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I edit a lot of articles, clearly you are keeping better track of it than I am. I have to say this is sounding a lot less like a WP:N concern now and more like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Artw (talk) 15:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

No, I just randomly chose two from your edit history and they both seemed to deal with paranormal woo-woo topics. A quick perusal seems to indicate that inserting fringe information into WP is an area of special interest for you. BlueSalix (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I would remind you to be WP:CIVIL, remind you that this is WP:NOTAFORUM, and also state that no, I do not go around induscriminatly inserting fringe material into articles. Artw (talk) 22:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I have said nothing uncivil. I'm not sure what it is with space alien/UFO enthusiasts responding to fact-based observations with WP:CIVIL charges but this seems to be a recent trend as we've seen here and elsewhere. Anyway, thank you for clarifying that you are not "induscriminatly" [sic] inserting fringe material. We should still avoid selective insertion of fringe conspiracy theories. BlueSalix (talk) 22:21, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• Keep Nick Cook was a real person, was featured in many documentaries, and has authored books of his own. Removing him from Wikipedia is cencorship.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.144.246.5 (talk)

Well we definitely don't want to cencor anything. BlueSalix (talk) 21:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• Delete Fails both wp:GNG and WP:ARTIST. I can't think of any other criteria to check them by.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Serialjoepsycho. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)