Deletion of Philip Coppens (author)

Comment: I would have to agree with Dougweller. The basic problem is the continued absence of independent |secondary sources giving biographical details, book reviews, etc
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: I do not know if he can be used as a |reliable source for anything but pseudoscience, but in his field he is widely published. (While we are at it, someone should write the article on Jüri Lina
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: This one surprised me: upon reading the article, I thought it'd be an easy "Keep" !vote, as pseudoscience with a following.  However, a number of Google searches, using ("philip coppens" OR "filip coppens") with other keywords, including such as "debunk" and "skeptic" to see if I could find evidence that he'd been noticed by James Randi et al., turned up nothing but Coppens's own website and lots of blogs and the like: nothing suggestive of coverage by the mainstream media.  Since there's been plenty of time for obituaries to run by now, I tried a Google News and Google News Archives search for ("philip coppens" "died"); this got me nothing.  Since he died in L.A., I tried searching the ''L.A. Times'' website for (coppens); I got a single article, mentioning a fashion designer named Tim Coppens.  Right now, I conclude that he fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: http://www.grenswetenschap.nl/permalink.asp?i=9342 This says he was buried on January 8th in LA.  Please keep this open at least until the 15th.  If no obits show up in genuinely |reliable sources by then, I'll be persuaded he's not |notable even though I think the History Channel appearances and numerous books make him notable in the dictionary sense of that word.  Waddya say
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:N)

Comment: I have a lot of respect for some of the keep !voters, but so far none of them have come up with sources that meet  or  and the decision should be made on the basis of our criteria for notability on the article as it stands now. The very fact that none of them have been able to find sources is part of the reason that I've decided to !vote at all. As DreamGuy says, delete now per our guidelines with no prejudice for recreation later if sources are found. I realise that the delete !votes are outnumbered, but hopefully this decision will be made on the basis of our guidelines (and please, 'no consensus' shouldn't apply here as that would be - in my opinion, saying our guidelines can be broken on the hope that someone will someday provide sources. The reason AfDs take a week is to allow sources to be found. If they aren't being found, that suggests they may not be there
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:AUTHOR)