Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Renard (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Renard

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Gary Renard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete No claim to notability is made. The only claim made is that he is devoted to teaching the principles of A Course in Miracles, but that in itself doesn't qualify as notability, because ACIM has sold around two million copies and many people have written books on it and are dedicated to teaching its principals. Does every ACIM teacher/author deserve a wiki? In my opinion, the only two ACIM figures who truly deserve Wikis are Helen Schucman (the author of "A Course in Miracles"), and Marianne Williamson who authored a book about ACIM (A Return to Love) which was an "Oprah pick" and has sold over 2 million copies! Renard can make no such claim to notability. Lucinda14 (talk) 09:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find that simply fixing grammatical and spelling errors when I find them is easier than nominating articles for deletion in order to "purify" Wikipedia. Notability is the criterion for inclusion, not opinions. The guy has sold a lot of books and according to the foremost scholar on the subject, D. Patrick Miller, Renard has had a major impact on the study of ACIM amongst those who study it. Scott P. (talk) 17:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Lucinda14 (talk) 09:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's "bad faith" for you to interpret the motives of an editor. I nominated this article because of what I wrote above: he has no claim to notability. This article was created back when his book "Disappearance of the Universe" (whose article was recently deleted) had just been published, and the only significance that book had was that it went to #2 on Amazon's sales list, a fact which isn't even mentioned in this article! Mind you, it didn't go to the top of New York Times (as A Return to Love had), but merely to #2 on Amazon.com -- purely as a result of a bundling marketing ploy by Hayhouse wherein people who bought the book through Amazon were given two free books in the Hayhouse catalogue. Marketing schemes don't make authors or books notable, particularly when the sales aren't even that great. This book has not sold millions of copies, as Williamson's book has. If you can find info that this man is notable, please insert it and I will eat my words. But this is a GOOD FAITH nomination on my part. (Please also note that a "notability?" tag has sat atop this page for months now. I'm not the only person to make this observation. Just because you disagree doesn't make my nomination "bad faith.") Lucinda14 (talk) 10:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is bad faith if you create an account on Wikipedia for the sole purpose of getting this article deleted. Softlavender (talk) 10:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's not why I created an account. And I'm not the only person to say this isn't a notable figure. Lucinda14 (talk) 10:57, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit history doesn't lie. Softlavender (talk) 11:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
it's pretty obvious you have a conflict of interest here which is why you keep distracting from the point: he's not notable. I assume you are a "student" of his or perhaps a business partner? Lucinda14 (talk) 13:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The only other ACIM teacher with a Wiki is Marianne Williamson, but her notability extends beyond ACIM and even into politics. Renard is not at her level. She has appeared on Oprah, Larry King, Good Morning America, and featured in Time and Newsweek. Has Renard? I Googled him, and I see that he appears in venues like "forgiveness.tv", and while it is true he has a twitter and facebook and youtube account … so does everyone. He's just not notable. Lucinda14 (talk) 10:50, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Per Amazon and Google searches, Renard has been quoted and/or mentioned extensively in at least 80 other books (possibly many more, but I made a point to exclude endorsements/forewords so didn't look inside those), including one of Wayne Dyer's books. He has been featured in seven documentary films. His books have been translated into 22 languages. Has also been a regular featured speaker at the annual A Course In Miracles international conference since 2008 or so. Notability is well met, even though the article doesn't necessarily reflect that. Softlavender (talk) 11:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Notability has not been well established for him. That's the point of this deletion discussion. What you mention is typical of people who work in the self-help and New Age genre. They all quote each other. They self-publish their own low-budget documentaries all the time. That doesn't make them notable. That means they are one among many in an industry that does that. Being mentioned by Wayne Dyer doesn't make him notable. Being a speaker at "A Course in Miracles" symposia does not make him notable. These descriptions fit many people. Find me a reference to him in People magazine, Time magazine, Newsweek, the New York Times, etc. I can find you such references for Marianne Williamson. You can't find them for Renard because they don't exist. He never broke out of the small-time, insular world of people who read "A Course in Miracles" (a small segment of people on the fringes of New Thought and Unity Church). The only other biography pages of ACIM figures are for Williamson, Helen Schucman, and William Thetford; Renard is not in their league. Do you have a conflict of interest here? Lucinda14 (talk) 12:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not only does this article in its present state [1] NOT establish his notability, it contains an outright grammatical error in the very lede: "stated purpose is to reawaken interest in and clarify the core principals of the 1976 spiritual text, A Course In Miracles (ACIM)." So, his aim is to establish who is in charge, who is the "principal" of, the ACIM movement, just as I knew who the principal of my elementary school was? It's just a badly written, unnecessary article on a non-notable topic. Lucinda14 (talk) 13:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please see the other books listed on "controversial knowledge" at Amazon.com: [2]. Not a notable category in itself. (Please also note that the book that ranks at #11 on the controversial knowledge list, ranks at number 21,265 overall on Amazon.com. [3]. And his most recent book, published in 2014, is at 91,000 on Amazon's best seller list. [4].) As for being an important ACIM teacher, Robert Thompson Perry is a far more significant figure in the movement, and is much more established [5], and yet his page has been redirected to the main ACIM page. Maybe that's what should happen with this page. And if you know anything about Wayne Dyer, you know he says that about just about everyone who asks for a comment. Since when do author's own promotional blurbs establish notability? Isn't that called "primary source"? You got that Dyer quote straight off of Renard's own Amazon.com page for "Disappearance of the Universe." Lucinda14 (talk) 15:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Lucinda, it's pretty obvious that your user id was created by someone who has edited Wikipedia significantly before under different user-id('s), and that the user-id that you are currently using was created specifically with the intention, so far, of deleting the Gary Renard article. Every one of the 40 or so edits made under your current user-id was made with that and only that intention. Yes, I do want to keep the article, as has been already decided by the previous aFd. Call that an agenda, but as I understand it, attempting to delete an article using multiple user-id's is usually called sock-puppetry. Please stick to one user-id. Scott P. (talk) 17:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Of course you want to keep this article. You're the one who started this article [6], and you are a student of Renard's and ACIM [7], which means you have a conflict of interest here. Back to the point here: Renard is not notable. Lucinda14 (talk) 19:49, 1 January 2015 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gary_Renard_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1084277535"