Deletion of Jim Tucker (2nd nomination)

Comment: clearly fails  and there has been no compelling evidence that he meets the GNG. That one of his books may be notable or has been translated into x languages is irrelevant - the books have articles already. I'd have rather continued to try to find sources showing notability, but as it has been so long and they haven't been forthcoming, I must !vote delete due to lack of notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: The overwhelming coverage that has been made on Tucker's research and his routinely being employed as an expert on the subject by mainstream media is quite sufficient as a rationale to keep the article. The dogged assaults on these articles, with much sophistry, leaves me with a strong impression of |I don't like it and it is increasingly difficult to retain a |good faith attitude towards editors who appear to want to purge Wikipedia from covering certain topics which remain paradoxical towards Scientism|current scientific consensus, based on that as the main motivating factor. With basis in Hepcat65's comment about other biographies I think a major argument here is that there shouldn't be another standard for articles on people which some editors scorn, basically on dogmatic grounds.  __
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:AGF)

Comment: I think we have an unfortunate double standard here: mainstream scientists are consistently held to a much higher standard than fringe scientists, and that this double standard leads to an |unduly large amount of coverage of the fringe in our encyclopedia. For a mainstream scientist, a keep in an AfD needs to document significant scholarly impact of their work (typically thousands of citations with some individual papers having hundreds) while a fringe scientist typically garners many keep votes on the basis only of a few sources that show that they exist and believe what the article says they believe. By typical academic biography standards Tucker does not have the impact we should be asking for: e.g. in http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=author%3Aj-tucker+reincarnation a Google scholar search for Tucker and reincarnation I found only 11 citations for his top publication, far below the usual standard for  #1. All that said, I think the sources on the article provide some evidence that he passes  #7
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE||WP:PROF)

Comment: He is certainly notable as per  considering
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: I wasn't going to bring the article up for deletion again, but no ''specific'' claim of  or  has been substantiated.  Yet.  As of a few hours ago, there were few sources which (clearly had, or were claimed to have) significant coverage about ''him'', rather than about his works or cases.  One of the "better" (i.e., most used as an example justifying ) sources was about one of his ''subjects'', with any comment about him or his works being secondary.  As for the specifics above, the second reference above is about the book Life Before Life (and is not strong evidence that the book is notable; it could easily be sponsored by the book publisher), and the research bursary is '''clearly''' not notable, as has been pointed out before
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:PROF||WP:GNG)