Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Renard

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep, nomination withdrawn (see debate). Just zis Guy you know? 11:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Renard

Topic matter is unverifiable having no reliable published source per Item 6.3. This slightly appears to be a vanity page used to support a book which hasn't received multiple awards. Without references the article is original research at best, and it does not establish any sort of notability that can be referenced about this author. Ste4k 07:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Err, the guy's book's sales rank on Amazon is 1,313, which is pretty hefty; there's nothing in WP:BIO that requires books to win multiple awards for their authors to be notable. I agree that the article needs considerable cleanup to be worth much as biography (heck, his Amazon profile has more bio info), but this certainly clears the WP:BIO bar and by a good bit. RGTraynor 08:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, appears to be at least marginally notable per WP:BIO. --Coredesat talk 08:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After double-checking, seems to fail WP:BIO - only 429 unique Google hits, and no mentions in any notable media. --Coredesat talk 09:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - 429 unique G-hits is rather a lot, actually. RGTraynor 16:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Clean-up. RGTraynor is right that the book's sales rank alone makes the author notable. Defeinitely a notable figure in the A Course in Miracles universe/cult/religion. Article just needs prose improvement. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 11:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Amazon.com sales rank.--Konstable 13:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't appear particularly notable KleenupKrew 20:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And I might add that last year this man's book was, for a time, ranked as Amazon.com's SECOND best seller, behind none other than the latest Harry Potter novel [1]. Please note that the nominating editor is on an anti-ACIM kick and has nominated more than half a dozen ACIM-related articles for deletion. -- Andrew Parodi 08:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Comment. Just to inform fellow editors: it appears that the nomination of this page by Ste4k for deletion is a “bad faith” deletion attempt. Ste4k has recently submitted deletion nominations for all of the following A Course in Miracles-related articles: Attitudinal healing, Helen Schucman, William Thetford, Foundation for Inner Peace, Foundation for A Course In Miracles, Community Miracles Center, Gary Renard, Kenneth Wapnick. And in the article Authorship of A Course in Miracles, Ste4k will not accept ANY websites as “verifiable” websites with regard to ACIM, including http://www.acim.org/ and http://www.facim.org/, both of which are the official websites of California-based non-profit organizations. This editor's deletion attempts are merely personal bias masquerading as adherence to Wikipedia policy. -- Andrew Parodi 08:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had a similiar problem with Ste4k nominating an article for deletion just because she had issues with it. Not sure she understands what AfD is for, she hasn't responded to any of my comments. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 08:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd be willing to talk about your situation with her, I'd be interested in hearing it. -- Andrew Parodi 08:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a problem with an editor, that cannot be solved between the two (or three) of you, you should consider an RfC. Using this as an argument in AfD just confuses the issues here. JChap 20:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep (just) and merge in the book article, since the two are essentially a single subject. Just zis Guy you know? 18:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge per JzG. JChap 20:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The general consensus looks to be to merge this article with its subordinate, cleanup and find reputible sources. I'll perform that as a project and I withdraw this nomination. Ste4k 05:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The book is notable enough to have its own article, and I don't see why we then shouldn't have one on the author. Shanes 08:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments, notable enough to meet WP:BIO guideline. Yamaguchi先生 08:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --Coredesat talk 09:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.