Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Renard (4th 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 Protected redirect and merge to A Course in Miracles. The consensus have been established with more clarity after contributions from editors outside of the topic. Protected redirect and merge to A Course in Miracles appears to be the most agreeable option. Alex ShihTalk 16:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

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

I'm renominating this for deletion as I said I would during the deletion review. I'm afraid Mr Renard does not meet the minimum threshold for a Wikipedia biography, in that there is insufficient information about him as a person in the reliable sources. The sources don't tell us his date of birth, nationality, profession, or really any other biographical information at all so it's simply not possible to base a biographical article on reliable sources. What limited sources we do have relate purely to his books. His biography should be deleted. — S Marshall T/C 21:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: The WP:DRV for this article was closed less than 10 hours ago as a near-unanimous endorsement of the no consensus closure of the previous AfD . The closer of the DRV,, reminded everyone of WP:RENOM, which states "If the XfD discussion was closed as 'no consensus', generally do not renominate the page for at least two months", and of WP:RENOM, which states "When you do renominate, try to make a better nomination statement than was made last time. Address directly the issues that caused the participants to not be persuaded last time. Emphasize the issues that were not sufficiently considered last time. Be warned that some consider renominations to be disruptive, or gaming.  Don’t exacerbate this problem by badgering the participants in the new discussion." Moreover, the previous AfD was non-neutrally canvassed (including all sorts of false aspersions) here: , and the DRV was also non-neutrally canvassed in that same thread. Softlavender (talk) 22:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. The subject 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. The article had already had two previous AfDs closed as Keep, and notability is not temporary. Softlavender (talk) 22:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I can't seem to see where either of the above two comments address the reasons for deletion that I provided.— S Marshall T/C 23:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The condition of a Wikipedia article has no bearing on the subject's 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) 05:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Correct, but I haven't said anything about the article's condition. What I've said is, in fact, very simple and with all due respect, it's quite hard to misunderstand.  If you have any independent, reliable sources that are actually about Mr Renard then you need to provide them.  The article has no future if you don't.— S Marshall  T/C 17:19, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Changed to merge, better solution.Slatersteven (talk) 07:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep There's no consensus regarding notability; unless a source related to A Course in Miracles suggests he is not notable, it should be kept. His personal website  is a source for the biographical details so I don't feel the lack of sourcing for that information is an issue. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * What? I didn't realize that we needed to find sources that attest to a person not being notable. Seems like it suffers from the proving a negative fallacy. jps (talk) 16:15, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * When the previous AfD was very recently closed as no consensus, you need something more. Without a secondary source that says something along the lines of "key people involved with A Course in Miracles in the 2000s include X Y and Z", I can't see how this can be deleted now.  Is Mr. Renard more or less notable than Charles Buell Anderson, Marianne Williamson, or David Hoffmeister? I don't know, and I see no sources that claim to answer that. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:19, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is a source for A Course In Miracles that attests to the authors of the book itself being notable. Gary Renard is not included. jps (talk) 22:22, 6 August 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) 05:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge Delete Much as I hate umpteen AFD's until we get the right answer I can find no real notability of this person, one book maybe.Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin: This AfD was non-neutrally canvassed at 16:16, 5 August 2017 (UTC) (prior to the previous !vote) by the same editor who filed the previous AfD which was closed one week ago, and who non-neutrally canvassed that AfD, and who filed the DRV on that AfD close, and who non-neutrally canvassed that DRV: . -- Softlavender (talk) 05:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * This is an interesting question about AFD's, this all he in fact did was to inform a notice board full of people who had commented on the last AFD, thus he in fact notified interested parties. Now we can also see he only did it on the one notice board (rather then contacting everyone). But is this in fact canvasing? I would ask JPS to not respond to this latest attack on his integrity. Lets not have this AFD go down the same road of tit for tat sniping as the last one.Slatersteven (talk) 09:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It is clearly non-neutral canvassing. This is neutral canvassing: . This is non-neutral canvassing: . See WP:APPNOTE: "Notifications must be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief".-- Softlavender (talk) 11:46, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * As we now have a discussion about this I do not think this should continue here. Can this please be dropped now?Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You responded to my notice, I answered. Softlavender (talk) 12:08, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete for lack of WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Reynard's books and films are not notable, making it hard to argue that he passes WP:AUTHOR #3. or 4.  He fails WP:AUTHOR #.2 because sole claim to notability is writing "books' stated purpose is to reawaken interest in and clarify the core principles of the 1976 spiritual text A Course In Miracles"  And also because the books are not notable (I.e., not widely reviewed, cited, or discussed in WP:RS.)  That leaves WP:AUTHOR #.1 :"The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors."  And here we have to face the fact that despite the fact that the article has been here since 2005 and this is the 5th AfD, none of the editors arguing for keeping have been able to bring sources that would establish this point.  The books cited in the article are within the A Course In Miracles thought tradition (a small, walled garden) and are not notable books.  Nor do they appear to give WP:SIGCOV to Reynard's work.  Nor, for that matter, does any source I can find.  The items that come up on a news archive search (Proquest) are primarily press releases and event listing talks in local events columns.  I can find nothing that approached WP:SIGCOV in a soruce independent of Reynard and A Course In Miracles.  Nor can I find anything resembling a published profile of him.  Topic fails WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:05, 6 August 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. The subject meets #2 of WP:ANYBIO and #1 and #3 of WP:NAUTHOR. Softlavender (talk) 15:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Kindly read my comment through to the end, ot the part where I discuss my searches, including a Proquest search, that failed to find sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Whilst the quality of the writing may not affect (and should not) an AFD an article not having RS added to it to establish notability in 12 years is an issue of notability, not quality.Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep and close as quickly as practical. After three failed proposals to delete and a heavily-participated DRV, this is time-wasting rather than a productive exercise. I also reject the notion that knowledge workers (speaking very broadly) should be judged by the same standards as media celebrities; when the subject's work is notable, and their career can be described, the absence of other biographical data should be irrelevant. Cf B. Traven. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 22:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you disagree with WP:FRINGEBLP then? jps (talk) 01:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * After three AFDs and a DRV find no consensus that it applies, I don't think my opinion is terribly relevant. I do think it was primarily intended to apply to pseudoscience rather than to religious beliefs. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 01:14, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That seems like a difficult means for demarcation when it comes to people who argue, as does Renard, that they can channel particular entities that exist outside of time and space and communicate scientific truths to him: e.g.. While there is a religious aspect to some of Renard's claims, there is definitely pseudoscience infused throughout his oeuvre. jps (talk) 01:20, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Procedural keep because we literally just had this discussion. Lepricavark (talk) 02:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)


 * i saw the notice at the ANI thread. :)  I went and looked for refs:
 * Renard" NYT search -- nothing.
 * WSJ search -- nothing.
 * LA Times search -- nothing (one hit but false)
 * SF Chronicle search - nothing
 * Atlantic search - nothing
 * New Yorker search - nothing
 * newsweek search - nothing
 * guardian search - nothing (well that is just a link to the main site - you cannot save your search there)
 * bbc search - nothing.
 * I google searched and it was a bunch of in-bubble blogs and what not.
 * So... what is the basis for claims that we can write an article about this person that says anything? There are no independent sources.  I fully expected to find a book review in some semi-serious publication.....
 * delete. Jytdog (talk) 05:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Procedural keep per Lepricavark. I haven't evaluated the notability or lack there of but it's way too soon to open another AfD. It's not like there's be a substantial change since then. Yes the previous AFD may have been somewhat disrupted by the canvassing concerns, but it should have been fairly obvious that opening this when the thread which started the canvassing was still there would just lead to the same result. In other words, this thread is just a waste of time since realistically it's only likely to end up with the same result. Nil Einne (talk) 08:27, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I think we can close this.Slatersteven (talk) 09:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Procedural keep - Take some advice from elsa. Twitbookspacetube 13:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete or Protected Redirect complaints about canvassing aside, I've still yet to see evidence of coverage by multiple, independent reliable sources. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Utterly trivial author, unjustified article. His notability in connection with A Course in Miracles is supposed to be having written a book based on it, which is too indirect an assertion--I notice it is not even mentioned in the article on the book. This does not meet the requirements of WP::AUTHOR,, which is the guideline here. Of the 4 books about him mentioned, the first two appear to be self-published. The people citing him seem to be mostly related to his movement,. The results of the first 2  afds were so idiosyncratic, and the 3rd was a non-consdnsus. The essay on renomination does not in my opinion represent WP guidelines and WP practice.  A non consensus close can be renominated immediately, tho I usually advise people to wait a few weeks in the hope of getting further consensus. (the essay suggests 2 months, but we very frequently renominate sooner than that. ) Yes, I came here after ANI. ANI is an appropriate way to call attention to peculiarities like this walled garden.  DGG ( talk ) 16:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Procedural Keep, and if that is not popular, Keep. L3X1 (distænt write)   )evidence(  16:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC) update16:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment "Procedural keep" !votes are just a way of saying "Keep because the letter of policy discourages another AfD". I find them to be utterly unconvincing. In fact, that goes for any "procedural" or "technical" !vote about any subject anywhere on this site. The whole point of WP policy is for consensus to trump rules.  ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * grumble grumble. L3X1 (distænt write)   )evidence(  16:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Believe me: I understand the frustration of "We just tried this and effed it all up last time! Give it a break!!!" I was tempted to !vote a procedural keep myself just to force some wait time on this issue. But in the end, we're here to decide whether this article has sufficient sources to continue to exist, and the undisputed fact is that it really doesn't. As abrasive as it might be to revisit this: we should get rid of it because it deserves to be deleted. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it's a way of saying why the fuck should we waste our time analysing something now, when we know what the outcome is going to be? Instead we should all stop wasting our time, and actually do something useful which will improve the encyclopaedia. Deleting this article may or may not do so, but it's clear it's never going to happen from this AfD so it's a silly and utter waste of time for us to be here. The sooner people realise this is pointless the better since then they can go back to improving wikipedia. I mean even if you feel there is some urgency to delete this article, this would almost definitely happen faster if this AFD was closed right now rather than staying open for 7 days or whatever, leading to either a keep or a no consensus and possibly another deletion review and so more time before another AFD can resonably be held and probably more acrimony next time. (Let alone compared to the much more resonable situation if this AFD was never opened and we let the past problems die a needed death.) Nil Einne (talk) 17:55, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not what it means. "Procedural Keep" is not the same thing as "This is a waste of time". I can point to AfDs that were closed as delete where people !voted "Procedural Keep". "Merits of the argument" used to mean something at Wikipedia and, occasionally, we arrive at situations where it still does. jps (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it's a way of saying why the fuck should we waste our time analysing something now, when we know what the outcome is going to be? We do? From the last AfD, a cursory glance would inform you of an obvious "Delete" result. It's only because Ritchie took the time to review the arguments that he realized that nobody was arguing about the article, but about the behavioral accusations. Even if one trims those out, we're left with the "Delete" side arguing "There's no notability, check these search results." and the "Keep" side arguing "Shut up!!!1!" So that seems like an obvious "Delete" to me, as well. But then, look at the !votes here... So I'm not sure what you think the obvious outcome is going to be. There's more people voting to keep this time, but their arguments have nothing at all to do with the notability of the article, which is pretty much a non-argument. To be honest, were I the admin handling these AfDs, I'd have close the previous one as "No Consensus" with a strong encouragement to try again without the bickering. But this one? I'd close this one as "Delete" with a suggestion that everyone who !voted "procedural keep" should probably read WP:CONLEVEL and WP:LAWYER and please try to remained focused on the content. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  18:44, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I stand by my !vote, regardless of whether anyone finds it convincing. We just had this discussion and the closure was upheld at DRV. It is not okay to flout proper procedure because one doesn't like the outcome. I don't like the precedent that could be set if this is closed in favor of deletion. Do we really want this to become commonplace? Lepricavark (talk) 01:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Ignoring process-wonkery and examining the actual merits of the content? Yes, please, as commonplace as possible. -- Begoon 01:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * So you'd be just fine with having anyone who doesn't get their way at AfD immediately opening a new discussion? I'm guessing you wouldn't and that's what I'm concerned about. Lepricavark (talk) 02:06, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * This isn't an issue of people not getting their way. I not only endorsed Ritchie's close of the last AfD (a "No consensus" close), but I attempted to support and advise him on his talk page. I think Ritchie made the right call, because the previous AfD was a clusterfuck. Believe it or not, my pile of fucks-to-give doesn't have a single one earmarked for this article. I couldn't care less whether it's deleted or not. But this AfD poses a question, to which I have provided an answer. Several other users have provided an answer to a very different question, and are now doing much to turn this particular AfD into a repeat of the previous clusterfuck. I seriously don't get the emotional investment some people seem to make in these discussions? Who the fuck cares if softlavender and jfg are at each other's throats? Who the fuck cares that someone else thought a brand new AfD, right after the clusterfuck was the way to go? The only thing that it makes any sense to care about is whether or not this article meets our notability guidelines. I'm sorry to say; not only does it not meet them, the fact that it doesn't does not appear to be in any serious dispute. So if this AfD gets closes as Keep or No Consensus, then there will soon be another one, and as long as they keep getting disrupted by bad-faith accusations and wikilawyering from a positions of exasperation at the drama this article caused, there will be no grounds whatsoever on which to ban editors from starting AfD after AfD after AfD.
 * So this problem has a fairly simple solution; delete the fucking article and we can all move on with our lives. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  18:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If this is closed with the deletion of the article, it will set a potentially dangerous precedent for other articles to be repeatedly taken to AfD until the desired (by some) result is achieved. I don't think that is a good precedent to set. I don't know why you would tell me that it doesn't make any sense to care about that. Lepricavark (talk) 23:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If this is closed with the keeping of the article, it will set a potentially dangerous precedent for other AfD's to be derailed from an obvious consensus (6 to 1 with no arguments even claiming suitable levels of sourcing) with a few well-placed accusations. The appeal to consequences goes both ways. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it does, although IMO insufficient attention has been paid to the very valid concerns I've raised. The hostility displayed by a certain editor (not you) toward anyone who disagrees with him, as if we are enemies of Wikipedia, has perhaps intimidated others from speaking up. Lepricavark (talk) 03:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That is distinctly possible. It's also possible that the WP:BLUDGEONy accusations of canvassing are discouraging editors as well. As I mentioned before, this and the previous AfD seem to be giant clusterfucks, and I really wish everyone would ignore all the drama and just !vote on the policy/content, so we can put this to bed. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That doesn't appear to be the case. The delete !voters don't seem the slightest bit discouraged from chiming in. It's easier for you to say "ignore all the drama" when you haven't been repeatedly misquoted and insulted, but I do see your point. Lepricavark (talk) 20:52, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you accusing User:S Marshall of acting in this way? jps (talk) 05:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * What do you think? Lepricavark (talk) 23:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Substantially for the reasons as laid out fairly conclusively by E.M.Gregory. Does not meet GNG as an individual. Highly unlikely to given the lack of independant sourcing. No significant coverage. This !vote brought to you by way of strident ANI indignation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I should have mentioned that in my! vote.  is diligent at a) doing careful BEFORE searches before they !vote at AfD and b) doing the work of actually fixing articles during AFD with refs they find.  Their !votes at AfD should get a lot of weight, either way they go. Jytdog (talk) 16:49, 7 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect - I have not participated in any of the previous deletion discussions. I read the arguments and the sources, and did some searches of my own. I was going to abstain based on procedure but DGG made a good point about how exceptions to the two month wait after an AfD close are allowable. The only two arguments in favor of keeping this article that I could find are that there are 1,084 reviews on Amazon for his book The Disappearance of the Universe [] and the book is ranked #15 (although in a very narrow category - #15 in Books > Religion & Spirituality > Occult & Paranormal > Ancient & Controversial Knowledge) [] But, I can't find any mainstream coverage on him or the book.  So, absent reliable coverage, this article clearly fails WP:GNG. That being said, it's a well-known fact that there are church groups that mobilize en masse to attend religious movies and buy related books, and so there's a large "hidden" subculture that is ignored by the mainstream media.  To address this, I recommend a compromise - taking some of the info about the book and putting it in a new section called A Course in Miracles, and redirecting this article there. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  21:13, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * AMazon reviews of books or anything else are user contributed, and the number of them reflects not the number of readers as much as their desire to write a review. Any look at any useer review site will show that the people making comments are those who are inveterate fans beyond rational belief, and irrational despisers, likewise. Only those people are motivated to write the review--the conclusion from this is that only a few people read these books, but those fe are violently POV about them. That is not the same as notability.   DGG ( talk ) 00:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Merge/redirect to a new section called A Course in Miracles per. I was able to find significant mainstream coverage about Gary Renard's book The Disappearance of the Universe in two sources:  The article notes: "What propels a book to the number 2 spot on Amazon—second only to the new Harry Potter—when there have been no major trade reviews, no advertising, no national media exposure and no placement on any regional or national bestsellers lists? What motivates 141 readers to post glowing reviews? In other words: What's the deal with Hay House's The Disappearance of the Universe? Originally published in May 2003 by Fearless Books, Gary Renard's Disappearance—subtitled Straight Talk About Illusions, Past Lives, Religion, Sex, Politics, and the Miracles of Forgiveness—was picked up by Hay House, which published its edition in October. The book sold 25,000 copies in the Fearless edition and more than 30,000 for Hay House before the author and Hay House decided to turn up the volume. Renard hired Peggy McColl, whose company, Dynamic Destinies, does online marketing for authors and publishers. Renard paid McColl's consulting fee; Hay House pitched in for the contact lists and other costs, and Fearless publisher D. Patrick Miller contributed his labor. ... Much of Disappearance grows out of Renard's study of A Course in Miracles,the 1976 three-volume set of books that became a spiritual curriculum for many individuals and study groups. Course remains a cult favorite, retaining a spot above 500 in the Amazon rankings and selling an estimated 1.5 million copies. Renard said Disappearance (his first book) took him nine years to write, 'and it's all true.' It describes Renard's conversations with a pair of 'ascended masters' (spiritual guides) who began visiting him in 1992 (they recommended he study the Course). He added, 'Yes, it was a great campaign, but it also took a strong book to make it as successful as it was. The book was already an underground hit—it had great reviews and a strong Web site presentation, as well as excellent word of mouth in the spiritual community and an author who has flown 100,000 miles in the last year to promote it.'"  The article notes: "Author Gary Renard received some strange visitors while meditating in his home alone one evening. Renard claims in his book, 'The Disappearance of the Universe,' that he opened his eyes from a meditation session to find a mysterious young couple sitting on his couch. In 17 subsequent conversations with the couple over the next nine years, Renard says they revealed themselves as ascended masters sent to teach him about the 'divine intelligence of the universe' --- religion, reincarnation, forgiveness and more. To those unfamiliar with Renard, his claims may seem a little hard to swallow. But through word of mouth, his book, based on teachings from and time spent with the couple, has found a significant place in the spiritual world. Its even been compared with the spiritual society's signature book 'A Course in Miracles,' by Helen Schucman and William Thetford. Both books are based on the author's writings on a series of divine visits and conversations. Renard's book also contains analyses of some of Schucman's primary teachings." </ol>I have searched extensively for sources about Gary Renard and his books; these are the two best sources I could find. Most of the other sources I found were passing mentions in newspapers or extensive coverage in self-published books, which is insufficient to establish notability. As these two articles are primarily about his book, I do not think they are enough for him to pass Notability. Two sources about a book are enough to establish notability per Notability (books). The Publishers Weekly review can be used to establish notability for The Disappearance of the Universe. But as an article about an event listing, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution source likely is not enough to establish notability. Since there is only one solid source about The Disappearance of Universe, I do not recommend creating an article about the book since it probably would get deleted or merged. I therefore support a selective merge to a new section called A Course in Miracles per Timtempleton because the Publishers Weekly and The Atlanta Journal-Constitution articles clearly connect Gary Renard and his book, The Disappearance of the Universe, with A Course in Miracles. Cunard (talk) 06:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * Delete per nom, and per DGG. Not notable. No independent sources. It shouldn't have taken this long to get this inappropriate article removed. -- Begoon 00:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * As I have said before, we do have the rather bizarre situation (elsewhere) where the book is notable, but the author is not.Slatersteven (talk) 09:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete (And no, Softlavender, as you said last AFD I wasn't canvassed to either discussion) Same reason as last time. He wrote a book, or a couple of books about a subject that is notable. So what? Just because you write about a notable subject, doesn't make the author notable. I don't see anything in the sources that Cunard puts forth that proves that the author is notable, just the book. Valeince (talk) 19:06, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - I just added info to A Course in Miracles in case the closing editor wants to close this with a redirect. I'm not vouching for any of the sources I copied - it was a straight cut and paste from here, with some grammar changes. <b style="color:#7F007F">TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  00:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . I have added more information about Renard's book to A Course in Miracles. Cunard (talk) 02:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I do not oppose this merge, which is entirely justified by the sources. Nevertheless, my position is that if the close is "merge and redirect", then the redirect should be fully protected to prevent this rather longstanding and persistently-defended walled garden from being restored against consensus.  Alternatively, the article could be deleted and then a fresh redirect created, preserving attribution by one of the methods suggested at WP:PATT.  I really don't want to have to watch this, please; my watchlist is quite full enough already.— S Marshall  T/C 16:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree - and was actually thinking that same thing myself. Since enough info is at the new redirect destination now, would a pure delete and then a recreation as a redirect work? Despite having come to this late and not really having any skin in the game, once this is deleted, I'd be happy to recreate Gary Renard as a redirect and monitor it in case the content has already been saved somewhere in a sandbox by persistent keep advocates. <b style="color:#7F007F">TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:33, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * A delete-and-recreate would work but you used the pre-existing article as a basis for the text you added to A Course in Miracles so we have to give the people who wrote that material credit for their work (which is in the terms of use).  They still own the copyright in their contributions.  Wikipedia uses them under licence.  Normally, credit to content authors is by means of the "view history" link, but if we delete the article then we hide the history, so we have to find another way to give them credit for their work.  This is what WP:PATT is about.  I expect the closer will avoid that though  I expect they'll just fully protect the redirect, keeping the history, and add afd-merged-from to Talk:A Course in Miracles (as has already been done in respect of another article that's been merged there).  That's the least laborious way to do it.  Strictly speaking, you should have added a merger template when you copied material from one article to another, but to be fair the rules on copying within Wikipedia are rather obscure and not widely known!  The closer will probably sort it out.— S Marshall  T/C 18:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I just rewrote the section, keeping the sources. Does that work? Interesting that entire articles are added to mirror sites where there is no attribution, yet a section can't be moved within Wikipedia from one article to the next. <b style="color:#7F007F">TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  18:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I suppose that's up to the closer whether it's sufficient, but personally if I was closing, I wouldn't be completely comfortable with that. Although I'm sure this wasn't your intention, rewriting it to avoid attribution has a faint whiff of an end-run around the terms of use. The afd-merged-from route is really quite easy to use and gives us an ironclad assurance that we're fulfilling our copyright licensing promises.— S Marshall T/C 22:54, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comments on recent events: The DRV for the last review was closed 13:09, 4 August 2017 (UTC) with linked advice not to re-nominate within two-month's time: . Three hours later, after seeing that the DRV was closed, I began improving the article by adding text cited to reliable independent third-party sources: . Two hours later, jps, who filed the previous AfD and who has repeatedly non-neutrally canvassed these AfDs, gutted the article by removing 1,772 bytes of text instead of tagging : . Three hours later, defying the advice of the DRV-closing admin,  opened this fourth AFD less than 10 hours after the DRV close. To repeat what I've stated previously, the subject easily meets #2 of WP:ANYBIO and #1 and #3 of WP:NAUTHOR. The current state of the article does not change that fact. The fact of the matter is that providing abundant sourced text for the article is more time-consuming than it was several years ago because of the current state of how GoogleBooks and Google itself works, and also because Amazon no longer allows "Search Inside This Book". Searches for this subject require more targeted searches and take time. If there hadn't been all of the drama created by the four-fold non-neutral canvassing (of the previous AFD, the DRV, this AfD, and the ANI) and the immediate (less than 10 hours after the DRV) re-nom, this article would have easily been drastically improved in two month's time (the time length indicated in the DRV-closing admin's links). Softlavender (talk) 20:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * This page has been little more than fancruft even since is was first nominated back in 2006 when it looked like this. It has never been an encyclopedia article. Even Cunard who is pretty much dependably inclusionist could not support keeping this. So I don't get it... Jytdog (talk) 21:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The condition of a Wikipedia article has no bearing on the subject's notability. See WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, WP:NEGLECT, WP:NOIMPROVEMENT. -- Softlavender (talk) 22:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Since your position is that you haven't had time to provide sources for this article that's existed since 2006, then how about we make a deal? Here's my offer. If, at any time after this is closed, you ever find the two (2) independent, reliable sources containing biographical information about Mr Renard that are the minimum standard for a Wikipedia article about him, then post them on my talk page and I will personally apologise to you, bring it to Deletion Review, and see that it's restored.— S Marshall T/C 22:54, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Nowhere have I stated or implied anything of the sort. Nor is AfD about making "deals"; it's about notability. This subject clearly meets #2 of WP:ANYBIO and #1 and #3 of WP:NAUTHOR, as I demonstrated in my !vote: . Moreover, WP:Renominating for deletion, which linked to in his close of the DRV in addition to the two-month hiatus guideline, states "Don’t exacerbate this problem by WP:BADGERing the participants in the new discussion." Softlavender (talk) 23:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm sorry, when you said searches for this subject require more targeted searches and take time, I understood that to mean that you needed time to find your sources. If I've got that wrong, then please post them now.— S Marshall  T/C 23:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Stop WP:BADGERing; "Don’t exacerbate this problem by WP:BADGERing the participants in the new discussion." . I am under no obligation to fulfill any of your demands, requests, stipulations, proclamations, or timelines, particularly not when you have egregiously violated WP:Renominating for deletion and repeatedly violated WP:Renominating for deletion. -- Softlavender (talk) 00:25, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * But you've edited this afd more than I have. How can it be me who's badgering? Surely it's you who's doing that?— S Marshall T/C 00:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, please read WP:Renominating for deletion: "When you do renominate, .... Be warned that some consider renominations to be disruptive, or gaming. Don’t exacerbate this problem by WP:BADGERing the participants in the new discussion." (bolding mine). Softlavender (talk) 01:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Stop badgering people to stop badgering. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't think that'll happen, OID. Softlavender's quite heavily invested in keeping this article.  Unfortunately for him it's a poorly-sourced article about an un-notable person who peddles something somewhere between a fringe religious position and pseudoscientific woo  and Softlavender is, it's quite clear, unable to offer any better sources than the desperately inadequate ones already mentioned above.  So Softlavender's response is to try to turn it into a conduct dispute about the terrible behaviour of the evil nominators.  Jps played into this strategy by making a note on AN/I that could be portrayed as non-neutral canvassing.  I have not, so Softlavender is trying to leverage an essay that RoySmith mentioned in his DRV close to stop me from answering him ("badgering").  If he relinquishes that position then the article has no further defence, so I anticipate persistence. And the truth is that I am "badgering".  I'm positively required to do so by the second paragraph of WP:BLP  a consideration that far outweighs the essay on which Softlavender would like to rely.  Policy demands that I am, and I quote, "very firm about the use of high-quality sources".  So badger, badger, badger.— S Marshall  T/C 16:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Minor note: SL is female per her page. And on a more substantive point, if this gets closed a NC or keep are you going to open up another one?  At _some_ point we need to accept it when consensus goes against us. Hobit (talk) 20:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

If it gets closed as "keep", then certainly not. That would be disruptive. But a "keep" closure based on this debate would be unlikely to survive DRV, don't you think? If it gets closed as "no consensus" then I will begin a discussion with the closer about the standards of sourcing the community requires for biographical articles about living people.— S Marshall T/C 21:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect at this point, I see no reason not to redirect to A Course in Miracles. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- I would not consider the book to be notable either; Publishers Weekly is rather cursory and indiscriminate in its reviews, and it looks like there's nothing else better. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:52, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect and merge to A Course in Miracles. Note the term "merge", rather than "delete and redirect". I've no objection to keeping most of the scant additional material that's here, but there's so little of it I can't see justification for a separate author article. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:07, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete or Protected Redirect. I myself do not really care if the history is kept, to be honest, so either one is fine with me, but I don't think there is any reason to delay the redirect as is often the standard operating procedure when a "merge" is decided upon. To be clear, the sourcing right now is not up to standards for a stand-alone WP:FRINGEBLP and it is clear to me that there are no WP:Independent sources to be had. The content is easily included in the ACIM main article, properly WP:WEIGHTed, of course. jps (talk) 12:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I !voted "Delete" above already, but I'm perfectly okay with a protected redirect. To me, they're functionally the same thing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:57, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Likewise. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * also am good with that. Jytdog (talk) 16:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge/Redirect. There's no sourced info on the author -- the subject of this page. After all this time and attention, there's still no article here.  Per BLP, we cannot have this article.  --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:26, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not happy with having the AfD so soon after the last. But we do now have a better solution.  So Merge per Cunard sounds right.  Were it not for that, I'd probably have gone with a procedural keep.  As always, thank you Cunard for your sources and work. Hobit (talk) 20:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge in A Course in Miracles — I desisted !voting on the last AfD. After doing more searches now it seems that Renard does not have the necessary independent coverage to have an article.  Thanks to Jytdog for search link suggestions.  Template:A Course in Miracles should also be adapted.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 08:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinton Feldberg (talk • contribs) 02:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge/Redirect - unremarkable person...<span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 13:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Protected Redirect to A_Course_in_Miracles. Superficially it looks like he might be notable, but after a closer look it's apparent that notability depends on a literary walled garden whose participants are not independent of Renard and his unorthodox beliefs.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:37, 13 August 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.