Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Gary Renard: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:42, 27 June 2006 editKonstable (talk | contribs)7,893 edits →[]: keep← Previous edit Latest revision as of 21:33, 15 March 2023 edit undoLegobot (talk | contribs)Bots1,667,805 editsm Bot: Fixing lint errors, replacing obsolete HTML tags: <font> (4x)Tag: Fixed lint errors 
(17 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page. ''
<!--Template:Afd top

Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result of the debate was '''Keep''', nomination withdrawn (see debate). ] 11:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
===]=== ===]===
Topic matter is ] having no ] per ]. 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. ] 07:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Topic matter is ] having no ] per ]. 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. ] 07:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
:*'''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 ] bar and by a good bit. ] 08:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC) :*'''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 ] bar and by a good bit. ] 08:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Weak keep''', appears to be at least marginally notable per ]. --''']''' <small>]</small> 08:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)</s> *<s>'''Weak keep''', appears to be at least marginally notable per ]. --''']''' <small>]</small> 08:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)</s>
*'''Delete'''. After double-checking, seems to fail ] - only 429 ''unique'' Google hits, and no mentions in any notable media. --''']''' <small>]</small> 09:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC) *<s>'''Delete'''. After double-checking, seems to fail ] - only 429 ''unique'' Google hits, and no mentions in any notable media. --''']''' <small>]</small> 09:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)</s>
*'''Keep''' and '''Clean-up'''. RGTraynor is right that the book's sales rank alone makes the author notable. Defeinitely a notable figure in the ] universe/cult/religion. Article just needs prose improvement. --]<sup>(]/])</Sup> 11:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC) :*'''Comment''' - 429 ''unique'' G-hits is rather a lot, actually. ] 16:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' and '''Clean-up'''. RGTraynor is right that the book's sales rank alone makes the author notable. Defeinitely a notable figure in the ] universe/cult/religion. Article just needs prose improvement. --]<sup>(]/])</Sup> 11:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' per Amazon.com sales rank.--] 13:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC) *'''Keep''' per Amazon.com sales rank.--] 13:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', doesn't appear particularly notable ] 20:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''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 . 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. -- ] 08:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' and '''Comment'''. Just to inform fellow editors: it appears that the nomination of this page by ] for deletion is a “bad faith” deletion attempt. ] has recently submitted deletion nominations for all of the following ]-related articles: ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]. And in the article ], ] will not accept ANY websites as “verifiable” websites with regard to ACIM, including and , 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 Misplaced Pages policy. -- ] 08:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
::I had a ] with ] 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. --]<sup>(]/])</Sup> 08:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
:::If you'd be willing to talk about your situation with her, I'd be interested in hearing it. -- ] 08:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
:::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. ] 20:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
* '''keep''' (just) and merge in the book article, since the two are essentially a single subject. ] 18:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep and merge''' per JzG. ] 20:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''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. ] 05:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''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. ] 08:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' per above comments, notable enough to meet ] guideline. ] 08:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' per above. --''']''' <small>]</small> 09:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>

Latest revision as of 21:33, 15 March 2023

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)

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)

  • 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)
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 08:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.