Deletion of Timothy Good (2nd nomination)

Comment: Other editors are being duped here. The reviews of his "work", such as they are, are of the al variety and the problem is one of  where the only in-depth sources which discuss Good ''as a person'' are hopelessly conflicted. It is not possible to write a neutral and verifiably sourced article on this person because he is not notable enough a . This also smacks a bit of . Is the author of this article conflicted in some way
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SENSATION||WP:FRIND||WP:FRINGEBLP||WP:SOAP)

Comment: Currently the only source in the article that is actually critical of Good's claims is a blog post on https://badufos.blogspot.com/. However, although it is by a recognized expert (Robert Sheaffer) it is a |self-published source, and  forbids using such sources on biographies of living people. Without a reliably published source of this nature, we cannot have a properly neutral article about the subject
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:SPS||WP:BLPSPS)

Comment: The claims in major media that he is a recognized expert on certain fringe topics would seem on its face to be enough for notability, but (per FRINGEBLP as cited above and per ) we also need sources that directly respond to his fringe views and provide a neutral mainstream view of them. Do such sources exist? They do not appear to be included in the article in its current state. Right now we only say that he is "a lecturer on the subject" but not what is positions are nor how mainstream they are, and I don't think that's an acceptable state to leave the article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: WP:FRINGEBLP applies here. At first glance, the sources seem reasonable. However, upon close examination they treat the subject with a  angle (Example: http://www.bbc.co.uk/birmingham/content/articles/2008/07/10/timothy_good_feature.shtml). If reliable sources merely sensationalize and don't bother to critically examine and evaluate Good's fringe claims (aliens briefed George Washington, secret bases under the ocean, conspiracy by world governments, malevolent aliens vs good aliens, etc) then we have no serious source material from which to write an objective biography
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SENSATIONAL)

Comment: The aspersions being cast by editor jps are a patent violation of . Being personally called a “dupe” and seeing Lopifalko’s good faith being blatantly smeared is a matter of concern far beyond the Afd we were previously having a civil discussion about. I’d like a non-involved admin to review the comments editor jps has made here, which I believe to be actionable
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No personal attacks (WP:NPA)

Comment: I wrote the article. I believe it satisfies  and  (in particular  but also if he is considered to be  then the criteria I believe he satisfies there is "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.") The article has multiple independent reliable sources with sustained coverage of the subject, from Australian Broadcasting Corporation and a number from the BBC. The ''Irish Independent'' source says Good "is regarded as a world expert on alien phenomena." The BBC sources say "Timothy Good is considered one of the world's leading experts on the UFO phenomenon" / "Timothy Good is recognised as one of the world's leading authorities in the UFO phenomenon and has given lectures and interviews on television and radio all around the world" and "Timothy has written numerous best-selling books on UFOs and aliens ... and has acted as a consultant to several US Congress investigations into the phenomenon
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:BIO||WP:BASIC||WP:ACADEMIC)

Comment: The article references are the best I could find.  He scrapes  with his books being reviewed/cited by ''New Scientist'', ''New York Times'', ''BBC'' and ''Irish Independent'' (and others); and he is a major figure in his field.  The ''BBC'' have interviewed him, and said "http://www.bbc.co.uk/birmingham/content/articles/2008/07/10/timothy_good_feature.shtml Timothy Good is considered one of the world's leading experts on the UFO phenomenon".  He lacks the major interview in a Tier 1 RS that would give unambigious WP:SIGCOV, however, I do think he scrapes NAUTHOR, and a reader into UFOs would expect to find him in WP
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NAUTHOR)