Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Hendricks


 * 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 06:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Gay Hendricks

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I'm not convinced this person is notable. I can't find any coverage in reliable secondary sources, most mentions seem to be on websites that are run by the subject himself. Also a bit concerned that the article seems to be promotional. Contested prod. Draftydoor (talk) 22:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Some of his books are from major publishers, which is rare for authors this "out there". i suspect that a lot of the references will be printed reviews in New Age magazines from the period. within the New Age, he is quite notable. I will try to find refs to show this. i agree the article is overly promotional, as most new age authors articles are. Im not a fan of using google to show notability, but searching for his full name in quotes and "conscious breathing" book title, gives 16k hits. not bad.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 07:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep At least 15 books each in over 200 Worldcat libraries. GNews shows reviews of them in LA Times,  USA Today, Chicago Tribune, Newsweek  and Library Journal & quite a number of other places.  I don;t see why the nom couldn't find these--they're right there in the links in the AfD nomination.  I would not consider him an academic, but he is notable as a writer.   DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - the article has no sources. WP:BLP recommends the immediate deletion of all unsourced statements in the biography of a living person, which in this case would result in blanking the article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. There seems to be plenty of sourcing available through Google news search and AfD is not the right way to get an article cleaned up. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - the policy of "if there's no sources, leave it in case some are found" doesn't apply to biographies of living people for reasons of litigation and defamation. Per WP:RS, "Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons, for legal reasons and in order to be fair. Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately if it is about a living person, and do not move it to the talk page. This applies to any material related to living persons on any page in any namespace, not just article space." - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep based on DGG's finds. Newspaper coverage of the guy, and he mentioned in books, makes him notable.   D r e a m Focus  03:44, 12 October 2009 (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.