Deletion of David Wilcock (2nd nomination)

Comment: that sourcing is unacceptably lacking in es for a  - and I say that thinking he's someone who ''should'' pass prima facie notability, per the "keep" opinions above ... but we can't have a BLP that isn't solidly backed up with RSes
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:BLP)

Comment: Nothing has changed since we last had this discussion, so I reproduce my argument here: This is a borderline case, and it may be that Wilcock will become notable in the future, but  here does not seem to be met, nor is he identified as notable per . He has two books that sold well. He appears in the sensationalist media talking about spiritualism. Wait a few years and see if his Q-rating takes off and we can consider whether this  should be included. Until then, it's best to remove this biography for falling just below the notability thresholds
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR||WP:FRINGEBLP||WP:BLP)

Comment: As the article creator, let me just begin by saying that I don't even remember starting this article and I don't even know who this is.  Similar to the claim above, I think I may even be a different DRosenbach! :)  But seriously, if he's on the NYT best sellers list, how can one refer to him as "non-notable."  I'm no authority on David Wilcocks A vs David Wilcocks B, but I checked him up on Audiobooks and it appears to be the same guy -- correct me and the article if I am wrong.  As it stands, I just don't see the argument for deleting this article.  And if he's a peddler of fringe theories, we may not like him and we may want him censored or silenced, but again, this hardly seems grounds for deleting his article.  He appears to be a quite notable person who writes books that are so popular that they appear on a list of popular books in one of the most prominent newspapers on the entire planet.  And as for the poor references and poor coverage of this individual, it appears that those who complain are merely doubly charged with |being bold.  The solution to poorly structured and organized articles is to fix them, not to delete them.  And I just checked the log for the first attempt at deletion -- nothing seems to have changed, so how can this be brought up again so soon.  Maybe in 10 years he'll have disappeared into oblivion, but if he's still on the NYT best seller's list, I see this second attempt at cheating to form an agreeing consensus.  Articles should be deleted by consensus of those espousing Wikipedia's virtues and values, not a consensus of subsets of people who want this article deleted
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Be bold (WP:BOLD)