Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Tucker (2nd nomination)
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
— User:David, 18:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:UNDUE||WP:PROF (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)