Deletion of Nick Cook

Comment: 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  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Fails both wp:GNG and . I can't think of any other criteria to check them by
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ARTIST)

Comment: I believe he exists. Unfortunately, that's not enough to substantiate notability such that we should have a article about the fellow. The two credible claims to notability (as I see it) would be the awards cited the ''The Atlantic'' interview and that interview itself and the 8-line passing mention he got because someone at ''The Guardian'' thought a doco he wrote was the ''least boring'' thing on local television that week. I don't think the two combined are enough to substantiate a pass against  and I don't think his books are enough to substantiate a pass against . The interview is (as most Frank Bures interviews are) about the topic, not the interviewee; in this case the issue and Cook's book. Even if he were to have talked about himself more, I don't know that would have helped. I'm willing to concede that a couple more high-quality sources might get this over the line, but I don't think we're there yet. Once again, the suggestion that a perfectly routine discussion about a subject and whether or not it meets our inclusion criteria is "censorship" is total nonsense
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: WP:GNG states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" then it is notable, which I would argue is the case, particularly in the form of the larger interview pieces. Some users have contested that, however  also states "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" - we certainly have multiple independent , varying in depth of coverage, and more could be added.  states a subject can be notable if they have "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." - the article shows that the subject has presented at least two lengthy documentaries. In addition some criteria of  may apply - per the Skeptoid article ''"Through this transcript, Witkowski claimed to have learned about Die Glocke. This account became popular in the West when aviation writer Nick Cook included it in his popular 2002 book The Hunt for Zero Point, a tale of the cranks and colorful characters who have tried to invent anti-gravity machines. Since that time, you've been able to find all you want on the Internet about Nazi flying saucers."'' - which could possibly qualify for  2 or 3, though I admit it's a scrape.  1 may be a possibility too since he is frequently quoted as an authority on various subjects he's written on. In conclusion I believe the article to be notable on multiple grounds
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:RS||WP:ENT||WP:AUTHOR||WP:AUTHOR||WP:AUTHOR)