Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Renard (3rd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus. "He's notable!" "No he isn't!" "Yes he is!" "No he isn't!" "There are lots of sources!" "No they're not!" "I'm sorry, is this the five minute argument or the full half-hour?"..... the conversation veered right away from discussing the notability of Gary Renard and into bickering about canvassing during the past week, so there was no advancement on the lack of consensus observed at the final relist. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Gary Renard
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:AUTHOR does not quite seem to be met here. Previous discussions mentioned the Amazon book-selling rank which I don't think is a good metric at all. Yes, he is cited by other (even notable) ACIM people, but being cited does not notability make. We need to decide whether Renard is notable as a person. From what I can gather from the sources used in the article and those I've looked, he is not. He's just another person in the ACIM community.

I think he falls below the notability threshold whereas the authors of the book itself and other more WP:CELEBRITY-type people (Wayne Dyer, for example) fall above the line more clearly. jps (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep, because at least three books have been written entirely about his books and a number of other books mention him prominently, including Understanding A Course in Miracles: The History, Message, and Legacy of a Spiritual Path for Today; so he meets #2 of WP:ANYBIO and #1 of WP:NAUTHOR. He has also been in at least four documentaries: . Admittedly A Course in Miracles is a rather fringey topic, but for instance Marianne Williamson has gained widespread recognition for doing that, and Renard, though fringier, has a burgeoning following and significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I'm having a harder time with Google web results because a lot of the results are less notable, fringey, or bloggish, but for one thing he has a profile at the Omega Institute for Holistic Studies and has taught there: . There's a total of 71,000 Google web results so I could probably find more if desired. Softlavender (talk) 20:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * My comment from previous AfD : 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); reposted Softlavender (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I am taking the liberty of pasting below a comment by from the previous AfD, minus the !vote:


 * Notable figure/author in the ACIM spiritual movement. Books are mentioned in other books (see Google Books). Books have large holdings in WorldCat. Large holdings in LibraryThing. Ranked #14 best seller in Amazon's Controversial Religious Knowledge list. "Destined to be one of the most significant contributions to spiritual literature in this century." Wayne Dyer. There may be other ACIM persons who don't (yet) have a Wikipedia article, but that isn't reason to delete this one. If there is trouble with the content or wording, concerns about promotion, Wikipedia anyone can edit it's a double-edged sword.
 * Above comment by on 30 December 2014 from the previous AfD: . copied and posted here by Softlavender (talk) 21:38, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we need to consider the question as to whether Renard as a person is worthy of a WP:FRINGEBLP. To that end, I find very little in the way of sources about him that extend beyond the ACIM fringe community. Yeah, he is quoted from time to time by fellow believers, but I do not find sources that rise to the level of WP:FRIND notice that we require. When you only have believers writing about you, that means that we do not have the sources necessary to develop an encyclopedia article on the subject while maintaining both WP:BLP and WP:NPOV (this is why WP:FRINGEBLP exists). The problem in fringe communities is that source churn can easily make it appear as though someone is "recognized" or "highly cited" when really it's just the believers preaching amongst themselves. Without proper contextualization that independent sources provides, it is impossible to write a WP:NPOV article on a person that hasn't been noticed outside the fringe community. If you can find someone who is not an ACIM devotee who has written about Renard as a person, please let me know. But so far, I've not found any sources that rise to that level. jps (talk) 14:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Dubious as I am about voting delete for a page that had been kept twice, I am finding nothing about him really. I cannot see how this passed before given the dearth of sources.Slatersteven (talk) 18:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Question: "Notable figure/author in the ACIM spiritual movement": Is this sufficient for notability, or would we also need wide enough coverage outside of that movement to consider the subject notable enough for an article? Thanks, — Paleo  Neonate  - 02:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It is an odd situation, I would say that if he is a major figure in the movement, then yes that notability should count (such as the head of the movement or it's leading spokesman), but just being part of it, no that would not be enough.Slatersteven (talk) 12:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * One of the ongoing questions we've had in issues such as this is who counts as a notable figure in a movement? My general answer (in terms of WP:FRINGEBLP and WP:FRIND) is that in order to be considered notable within the movement someone from outside of the movement needs to have noticed you. Thus, we have Helen Schucman, William Thetford, and Marianne Williamson whose notability is attested to be outside sources. Renard, on the other hand, seems to only have been quoted (and in some of the above citation, only in minimal ways) by other ACIM adherents. jps (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input. I think that I'll still avoid !voting as I'm really unsure.  I found more hits for Renard than for Schucman, but could not take the time to evaluate results and properly evaluate why.  — Paleo  Neonate  - 10:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Schucman would pass WP:AUTHOR whereas I do not believe Renard does. jps (talk) 17:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Renard meets #1 and #3 of WP:AUTHOR. -- Softlavender (talk) 21:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * As intimated above, I disagree. The "peers" or "successors" have to align with WP:FRIND and the "major work" is number 12 on Amazon which does not, to me, indicate "major work" if for no other reason than it doesn't tend to generate biographical material when you don't break top ten. jps (talk) 01:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You are making up rules and conditions and guidelines and standards and qualifications that don't exist. "Peers or successors" would obviously be peers (fellow writers) on ACIM or new thought, and it has already been noted here that he has had at least three books written entirely about his books, is quoted extensively in at least three books by Wayne Dyer, , , and is quoted and/or mentioned extensively in at least 80 other books. All of those meet #1 and #3 of WP:AUTHOR. -- Softlavender (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

New Thought is a collection of loosely affiliated quasi-religious beliefs. What distinguishes believers in New Thought is their uncritical acceptance of fringe claims or their religious community. Now, it is clear that Renard is not affiliated with Unity Church or anything like that, so we're left with a community of WP:FRINGE advocates. That's why we look at what it takes to make a fringe theory notable. In this case, we would look for notice of Renard's ideas by independent sources. That's a fundamental test for Wikipedia and not made up by me. jps (talk) 11:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, you are making up notability rules and conditions and guidelines and standards and qualifications that do not exist. (If they exist, please quote the wording of them directly.) As I've demonstrated several times, he easily meets #1 and #3 of WP:AUTHOR. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:27, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:FRINGEBLP: "There are people who are notable enough to have articles included in Wikipedia solely on the basis of their advocacy of fringe beliefs. Notability can be determined by considering whether there are enough reliable and independent sources that discuss the person in a serious and extensive manner, taking care also to avoid the pitfalls that can appear when determining the notability of fringe theories themselves. Caution should be exercised when evaluating whether there are enough sources available to write a neutral biography that neither unduly promotes nor denigrates the subject." The link to "notability of fringe theories themselves" is to the following section: "For a fringe theory to be considered notable, and therefore to qualify for a separate article in Wikipedia, it is not sufficient that it has been discussed, positively or negatively, by groups or individuals – even if those groups are notable enough for a Wikipedia article themselves. To be notable, a topic must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Otherwise it is not notable enough for a dedicated article in Wikipedia."Emphasis mine. jps (talk) 14:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Meets WP:FRINGEBLP, as well as easily meeting #1 and #3 of WP:AUTHOR. Is not a "topic"; A Course in Miracles is a topic and already has considerable coverage on Wikipedia (including a navbox and a Category), as does New Thought. -- Softlavender (talk) 02:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * We're entering WP:IDHT territory. No one said that ACIM or New Thought is not a topic on Wikipedia. jps (talk) 04:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The second quotation above is about topics, not people/authors. Softlavender (talk) 04:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Which is why the first quotation is provided. jps (talk) 12:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The subject is neither a fringe theory nor a topic, so the second quotation does not apply. The subject is an author on a topic(s) which already have considerable coverage on Wikipedia (including navboxes and Categories). Softlavender (talk) 12:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, we've reached WP:IDHT territory. I'll let others evaluate whether a section written about "treatment of living persons" is about living people or not. jps (talk) 12:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Neither the second quotation nor the part of it you bolded is about "treatment of living persons", it is from WP:NFRINGE. And even beyond that, I have already established several times that the topic(s) the subject writes about already have considerable coverage on Wikipedia, including navboxes and Categories. Softlavender (talk) 13:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * A BLP is a topic. It is a specific subset of topics in which the topic is a person. NFRINGE applies to all topics, not just to all non-BLP topics. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No, a person (BLP) is an article subject. A fringe theory "(a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory)" is a topic. A person is not a theory, and WP:NFRINGE does not mention persons, and specifically defines the parameters of that guideline as "(a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory)" . -- Softlavender (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * See Topic - Dictionary.com. You're drawing a false distinction. A topic is a subject in the context of an encyclopedia article, and it seems quite apparent to myself (and apparently, to jps) not only that the quoted section applies, but why it applies. There are countless millions of individuals who are notable within a fringe group, and who also lack WP articles because they are not notable outside the group, and that is as it should be. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:30, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I'm quoting the actual guideline, "(a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory)", and distinguishing between Wikipedia guidelines for persons and Wikipedia guidelines for non-persons. If you want to quote a Wikipedia guideline for persons, please do, and please quote directly. Softlavender (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * An actual guideline, pertaining specifically to BLP's and saying exactly the same thing was the first quote jps provided. Even if I'm entirely wrong (which I'm not, but for argumentation's sake, let's assume I am), your position is still in opposition to policy. So, you asked for a policy quote? Here goes: Notability can be determined by considering whether there are enough reliable and independent sources that discuss the person in a serious and extensive manner.... (emphasis added)  ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep he turns up plenty of results in Microsoft Bing, only the current article fails WP:PRIMARY. --1.55.183.244 (talk) 08:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * He turns up plenty of results in Google, the problem is they are not RS, care to link to a couple of RS?Slatersteven (talk) 07:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. It seems like if anything, the book he wrote is more likely to have an article than he himself. But Gary himself simply doesn't meet notability. I've noticed that Wikipedians recently are very reluctant to delete article even though the subject has almost no coverage. Also, I followed some of the links provided by other Wikipedian's voting to keep and they do not in any way affirm notability, not even talking about WP:RS  Nik ol ai Ho ☎️ 02:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * He has written three books and a fourth is already listed on Amazon. He gets 77,700 Google web hits and 3,270 Google Books hits. He is quoted or mentioned at length in well over 80 other books (that was the case in 2014; at this point it could be well over 100), including at least three by Wayne Dyer. He easily meets #1 and #3 of WP:AUTHOR. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:27, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. Source: "Gary Renauld.. has gathered a large following around the world" is an assertion of notability. The same source also calls him a fraud and plagiarizer. Without a Wikipedia this information will largely disappear from public discourse. -- Green  C  14:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * We absolutely should not be using that book as a source. Wikipedia should not be in the business of using vanity-published books as a source for anything in the encyclopedia. . jps (talk) 17:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed, did not know that. -- Green  C  18:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete I've seen an assertion of notability, but nothing so far which backs it up. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * When the source itself directly asserts notability (as I just posted above), it is sourced ie. backed up. -- Green  C  16:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think a single assertion of notability, even in a reliable source, establishes significant coverage. And of course, that source is hardly reliable, else we'd be faced with the prospect of treating the author's claims of being the reincarnation of Jude, brother of Jesus with credulity.  ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * What makes you think the source isn't reliable? Did you even read it? It's extremely critical of the guy outright calling him a liar and fraud. -Do you disagree with the source? - Green  C  16:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The fact that the author claims to be the reincarnation of Jude, brother of Jesus is, for me at least, a red flag of unreliability. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm .. I'm not too concerned about his religious beliefs (Pope thinks he is God's sole contact on earth and the Dalai Lama thinks he is reincarnation of himself) - but he is connected to the Course in Miracles so it weakens it as an internal dispute and reduces notability. Plus the problem of vanity press noted by jps. -- Green  C  18:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that a belief in reincarnation or even in certain particulars about one's past lives does not disqualify an author from being an RS (else we'd have to eliminate a lot of authors of non-Abrahamic religions), but when those beliefs form the basis for numerous claims of fact (as they do in this book), I'm inclined to subject those beliefs to more scrutiny. The author supposedly has a degree in... something... and taught... some subject... so I suppose if those claims were substantiated, we could use works by him as an RS on the subject of whatever his field is. But I wouldn't ever use this work to make factual claims about a fellow (competing) new-age guru, given the inherent unreliability of statements made in the context of a fringe field. Similarly, I would happily quote Lee Smolin for a number of claims of fact about physics, but I'd never use him as a source for claims about the character or honesty of physicists who argue against Loop quantum gravity. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - If this guy is "quoted or mentioned at length in over 80 books", why are none of those sources cited in the article? The only two citations are a promotional website and the subject's own podcast, neither of which even remotely qualifies as RS.  If, as noted above, a substantial portion of this "mention" labels him "a fraud and a plagiarizer", why is there no reference to any of that material in the article, in the interest of NPOV?  Most of the current content appears to have been written by a member of his "large following" - and some of it ("he has always wanted to move to Hawaii") is just ludicrous. If the article is to be kept, it needs to be rewritten as a real, objective BLP article, with real references.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  16:17, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The condition of a Wikipedia article has no bearing on its notability. If you would like to add to the article, by all means do. See WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, WP:NEGLECT, WP:NOIMPROVEMENT, and WP:SOFIXIT. -- Softlavender (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I argue that none of these sources really can be used. As have others. And there is no evidence that the "keepers" think it is actually possible to write the article on the basis of mention in these 80 books. Many of them are so trivial mentions as to be entirely useless. jps (talk) 17:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course they can be used; they are independent of the subject. And obviously you have not looked through all 80+ books. Softlavender (talk) 06:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The WP:ONUS is on you to identify an independent reliable source on which we can base the article. So far, all you do is trumpet Wayne Dyer who himself admits in the very quotes you provide to be a partisan in championing Gary Renard. That's not an WP:Independent source. I did slog through a number of the books in your "80+" list, but like many others commenting here found absolutely nothing that rose to the level of independence we would require to write a neutral article. Many of the sources were totally unusable (such as the one identified by GreenC which is published by a vanity publisher). If you might find a source that wasn't written about an ACIM acolyte that could attest to the notability of this character, you would do your cause great justice. But, for now, I see a lot of repetitive complaints and little actionable substance. If you cannot put up evidence better than what you have presented, I don't think you've successfully made your case. jps (talk) 17:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no dog in this fight -- I'm commenting as a neutral observer who had never heard of this guy before today. I understand that when an article is poorly written, but has good, eventually sourceable content in it, it should be developed and improved, not deleted.  But if there are no reliable, third-party, published sources, and no realistic prospect of finding any - as some have argued, above - it may well be best to delete it.  A reasonable middle ground might be to stub and tag it.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  19:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * DeleteBecause I'm not seeing any independent sources discuss this guy in depth. I also don't buy that just because you write about a notable subject, you are now notable; which is how I read some of the above arguments. Valeince (talk) 01:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete this is an author of WP:FRINGE books with no other claim of notability. I don't see any way that he meets WP:AUTHOR or anything in WP:FRINGE. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * He meets meets #2 of WP:ANYBIO and #1 and #3 of WP:NAUTHOR. At least three books have been written entirely about his books and at least 80+ books mention or quote him prominently, including Understanding A Course in Miracles: The History, Message, and Legacy of a Spiritual Path for Today and at least three books by Wayne Dyer. He has been featured in seven documentary films, and his books have been translated into 22 languages. Softlavender (talk) 06:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Note to closing admin: At 13:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC) this AfD was non-neutrally canvassed at WP:FTN by the nominator: . That occurred prior to the last three !votes. Softlavender (talk) 06:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't normally read the fringe noticeboard, and came across this on the AfD daily listing. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This AfD hasn't been (re)listed since eight days ago, on July 11, one of 93 on that list. You also posted a new report at FTN just last month: . -- Softlavender (talk) 07:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's pretty hard to canvas with a noticeboard posting, because of the large readership. Note that both jps and Softlavender put their "non-neutral" arguments at this NB so if one in canvassing, they both are. Alexbrn (talk) 07:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * To repeat, it was non-neutrally canvassed, and thus was a clear violation of WP:CANVASS. -- Softlavender (talk) 12:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If that is true, you are as guilty since you posted your own "keep" arguments to that noticeboard, just as jps posted his "delete" ones. However since FT/N has over 200 active members it's hard to canvas there, since you are addressing so many. Alexbrn (talk) 13:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I did not canvass, I responded to false accusations there. This is clearly non-neutral canvassing, and also included a number of false accusations. The number of watchers further increases the non-neutral canvassing effect. Please read WP:CANVASS and specifically WP:APPNOTE: "Notifications must be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief—the user can always find out more by clicking on the link to the discussion.". -- Softlavender (talk) 13:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:CANVAS lists four criteria to judge on: Scale, Message, Audience & Transparency. Jps's "message" was obviously partial, but then so was yours, so it's even stevens. Because the other aspects are okay I don't think this is serious canvassing. That would be more like quietly going to the Talk page of buddies and asking them to come and vote. Anyway, if you really think there's a problem take it to WP:AIN - it of no help here.Alexbrn (talk) 13:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that jps's use of the Noticeboard was inappropriate. He initially notified about the AfD ok fine. But then he continued posting, creating a separate parallel discussion to the AfD .. it's forum shopping, canvassing, bad faith accusations ("some sort of vested interest in New Age self-helpdom") and uncivil ("Perhaps Oprah-inspired"). Softlavender's attempt to defend himself is natural and not CANVAS. Why would Softlavender canvas that noticeboard, it makes no sense, just looks like an attempt to create a faux boomerang. --  Green  C  13:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * To repeat, I did not canvass, jps did. And in terms of Scale, Message, Audience & Transparency: the scale was large because of the number of watchers as you noted; the message was clearly biased and campaigning; and the audience was partisan because that's who watches FTN. Please read the post and then WP:APPNOTE: "Notifications must be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief—the user can always find out more by clicking on the link to the discussion.". This isn't an ANI situation; the notice is for the closing admin of this AfD. Softlavender (talk) 13:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * the audience was partisan because that's who watches FTN <- that's rather an extraordinary comment. The good folks of FTN specialise in the correct application of WP:FRINGE/WP:NPOV which is surely only "partisan" is favouring the WP:PAGs, and the noticeboard attracts proponents of fringe theories too (who are nevertheless constrained by the WP:PAGs as are we all). Alexbrn (talk) 14:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * When a non-neutral canvassing notice is placed on a noticeboard that polices a certain area (as opposed to a WikiProject), there is a definite partisanship. The fact that you are here and still arguing about this (which is a clear and textbook case of non-neutral canvassing) merely proves the point, as you clearly came from that noticeboard: . The last thing this AfD is more clutter. (I suggest someone hat this section of dialogue started by Alexbrn.) Softlavender (talk) 14:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I loathe to relist a discussion with so many comments but despite the wealth of comments, there is still no clear consensus, so maybe another week might change that.
 * What an interesting comment coming from the person whose first comment is the most "clutter" I have ever seen in an AfD discussion. jps (talk) 14:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  So Why  09:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment to : Considering the non-neutral noticeboard canvassing that occurred prior to the last three !votes (see notice above), all further !votes are also going to be cast into doubt and are likely to be from the non-neutral noticeboard canvassing. Softlavender (talk) 14:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Some might consider this comment itself to be non-neutral canvassing. :) jps (talk) 14:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * They might but they might be wrong because I cannot be canvassed since I already acted as an admin  The potential taint due to canvassing was one of the reasons I decided to relist. I do believe the post, while made in the open to a non-partisan audience can be considered "biased" in accordance with Canvassing because of the wording, especially when turning the thread there into a continuation of this AFD. Regardless, it would be best if people stopped arguing about that post and started discussing this subject again. Regards  So  Why  17:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The guideline says nothing about the audience for campaigning, just whether the comment is "neutral". But that's just another example of poorly written WP:PAG at Wikipedia, of course. I agree with your desire to get back to the subject at hand. I would like to get as many thoughtful people as possible to comment. jps (talk) 17:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * COmment Posting a notice to a relevant noticeboard is generally considered to be an exception from canvassing. One might point out that nothing up to and including the comment containing the "tedious arguments" bit actually espouses any call to action to !vote delete, or make it clear which way jps is !voting. That's not canvassing. Now, there's a case to be made that some of those comments were uncivil, but that's an entirely different matter. Calls to ignore !votes due to the FTN comments are spurious an wikilawyering. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed, despite the sub-optimal way of it being done, the result has been widened consensus - which is good. Alexbrn (talk) 16:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Disagree. A notification was made, the AfD created, no problem. But then jps started discussing the AfD in a partisan way calling out the primary Keep voter with bad faith accusations, creating a parallel discussion to an open AfD. It is more than a civil case it's the whole package. If it influenced votes or not we can never know with certainty, but it was not a good move by jps, Softlavender has every right to be concerned. -- Green  C  16:38, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The discussion was absolutely stalled before I posted a reminder on the noticeboard. I'm allowed to have an opinion. You're allowed to be concerned, but the decision should be made on the merits of the arguments herein made rather than any insipid concerns about how I frame my commentary. Please don't presume to bestow magical powers of persuasion on my contributions. I just calls 'em like I sees 'em. Y'know. Like WP:SPADE. jps (talk) 17:41, 19 July 2017 (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.