Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Arthur Ray (2nd 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   keep.  MBisanz  talk 00:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

James Arthur Ray
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Procedural nom. User:Mywikieditor2007 tried to afd this but didn't do it right. No vote. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment His book did hit #6 on one of the NYT lists. --Cube lurker (talk) 18:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm still waiting for the original nom (whom I've notified) to say why they think the page should be deleted. If they don't respond, I'll just close this. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

hi, two previous james ray pages were deleted as vanity pages, one was even marked for speedy deletion - last year i don't know if the circumstances have changed that his page is not considered a vanity one. Mywikieditor2007 (talk) 18:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Its nothing but a thinly veiled ad, like his previous pages. Mywikieditor2007 (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * How is it a thinly veiled ad? It looks fairly neutral in tone to me, it's not written in a promotional tone. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * for example the 'harmonic wealth weekend' Harmonic Wealth Weekend

Ray has become known in the media and press for talking about “Harmonic Wealth”. This focuses on teaching individuals to create wealth in all areas of their lives: financially, relationally, mentally, physically and spiritually. He claims that his two-day, transformational event helps participants achieve more harmony in all areas of their life. Ray has been known in the media and press? then it goes on the soft sell the harmonic wealth weekend, which, presumably is an expensive seminar. Mywikieditor2007 (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete, per WP:CREATIVE. Yes, his book is on the nyt bestseller list, and there are numerous hits on google news. However, I simply cannot find significant coverage, and the accumulated minor things and trivial coverage I find in the article or at google don't seem to be enough. Note that I also think that this is an autobiography: the article's author also uploaded the professional photograph Image:JamesArthurRay.jpg, and claims to be the copyright holder. -- Amalthea Talk 20:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I went through the same exercise as Amalthea and arrived at the same conclusion. Lots of coverage, but everything I read was trivial mentions... it's arguable whether he's a "noted expert" in his field; he does seem to get called on a lot to discuss motivational stuff.  But without better sourcing of HIM as opposed to his words about other people and issues, I don't think this article demonstrates the notability required here. Townlake (talk) 20:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep You don't have to like what he does or says, but he has appeared on national tv multiple times, appeared in a controversial movie, and lectured around the US. There's an interview on WGN. I think we need an article. If there isn't much to say about him from reliable third party sources, then it can just stay a stub. Brianyoumans (talk) 23:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * question: if his page was deleted twice previously, what is the policy if he put up again? Brianyoumans - the problem is, i guess if its put up as a stub he'll start posting the adverts again. these 'noted experts' seem to make their living by self&cross-referencing and self promoting their 'expertise', so it seems, to me this page is only helping to enable that..Mywikieditor2007 (talk) 14:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The previous AFD was in 2005; possibly he has become more notable since then. I don't know what the article looked like at that time, or at the time of the speedy deletion. If someone tries to add inappropriate material, then it should be removed. I don't think the potential for "spamvertisment" is really a valid reason to delete. You are free to keep an eye on the article by putting it on your watch list. I think I will do that myself. Brianyoumans (talk) 20:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A recreation of an article deleted per AfD is in principle speedily deletable per WP:CSD – this doesn't apply here for several reasons though, see the conditions there. Besides, as Brianyoumans said, the last AfD was three years ago, long enough that policies and consenus can have changed. -- Amalthea Talk 21:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've heard of this guy in recent years.  Motivational pitchmen are as American as apple pie.  Wasted Time R (talk) 21:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Yes the article does strike me as a little bit promotional, but the notability is there (meeting WP:BIO in my mind) and can be equally verified as well.  RFerreira (talk) 22:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep If he made the NYT best seller list, he;s notable. That a very high standard to meet. Regardless of why so many people thought his work notable enough to purchase, they did do so. DGG (talk)
 * That would make the book notable, but him? I don't think WP:CREATIVE presumes notability for book charting.  I don't mean to disrespect the Keeps here, but they seem to mostly be based on WP:IKNOWIT arguments instead of actual sourcing.  Am I wrong? Townlake (talk) 01:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - not notable. having a nytimes best-selling book does not necessarily make the author notable Theserialcomma (talk) 22:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * also, the article reads like a vanity page/advertisement Theserialcomma (talk) 22:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep NYT bestseller author does imply notability, one can construe various parts of WP:CREATIVE that way. It might not be proper to use an obscure, highly specialized bestseller list that way, but the NYT is the big time. Sometimes their brief comments on the bestsellers are subtly snarky, but their prominence and existence means significant critical attention among other criteria.John Z (talk) 01:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep meets the notability guidelines, I'd also class him more as an entertainer than a creative. RMHED (talk) 23:27, 14 September 2008 (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.