Deletion of Tobias Churton

Comment: Yes, MSJapan's prod "no real sources for years" removed by article creator (me) after adding more sources and discussion with MSJapan. And here is the expected AfD. What a waste of time. I really don't like this kind of strong-arming to add sources. If someone sees a weak-sourced stub, and then checks in Google Books or Scholar and sees more sources - which MSJapan says to me he did - why not just add the sources oneself, at least that is why I do when I see such stubs. I'm not actually greatly interested in this author, my opinion of his pulpy 4-part Channel 4 TV drama-documentary series Gnostics (TV series) and book is much the same as Roger Lewis in the Daily Express review of the Aleister Crowley biography. But in this area - esoterics - we expect pulpy esoteric "scholarship" it's what the punters want. In any case he meets , even if for being a pulpy populist scholar
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: There is wide popular interest in fringe esoterica (Umberto Eco has deconstructed the field definitively). There are some significant cites in Google scholar for this LP and  is met
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR)