Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laurence Boldt


 * 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 defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. I would however suggest a reasonable interlude before sending this back to AFD in the hopes of article improvement. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Laurence Boldt

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Author fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR; total lack of independent WP:RS.

Ineligible for PROD, PROD'd in 2008 for notability concerns & de-PROD'd because "Zen and the Art of Making a Living has a respectable Amazon uk ranking". &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 15:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  16:22, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment His works are subjects of instructions in courses at Stanford (Design course), another course at Stanford (EDUC 338X), Duke University (Integrative Health Coaching course), Wake Forest University (program for not-for-profits), UMASS.edu (295C), Suffolk County College (HM60), UCLA, ACTCM.edu (ACM6545), Aquinas.edu, University of Notre Dame... Lourdes  16:32, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: His works are taught in college courses. SL93 (talk) 00:20, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:26, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Total lack of reliable sources. Although his books feature on a few courses, that doesn't guarantee notability. Some of the courses are not mainstream academic subjects, e.g. he's included alongside texts on acupuncture and WP:FRINGE medicine here and in other courses he's just one name on a long reading list or given as supplementary reading. He's not part of any widely used syllabus, or either subject or author of a commonly-used textbook, and he's not the subject of significant published criticism. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, I understand what you're saying. Yet, I feel there are some examples that are compelling. Wakeforest University mentions in their Non-profit Immersion Program that they teach the program...: "...through discussions and reading various articles and books, including ‘How to Find The Work You Love’ by Laurence Boldt and excerpts from the anthology ‘Leading Lives that Matter.’...", it provides support for the enduring significance of this author's works. UCLA's course on Leadership And Spirituality teaches “Service: The Call of Compassion” by Laurence G. Boldt as a course assignment. Similarly, one of the tuition courses at Aquinas College has this statement: "Laurence Boldt authored The Tao of Abundance, and in this class through small group and experiential learning, we will explore samples of his text and engage in dialog and exercises to examine how we spend our time, circulate our gifts and talents, and how we cultivate chi or energy and joy in our lives". All this, in my opinion, provides support for the enduring significance of the subject's works. With respect to whether the author's works are notable, I feel WP:NBOOK helps here, which mentions that any book that "has been the subject of instruction at two or more schools, colleges, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country" is notable. Would be nice if you could comment on this interpretation. Thanks. Lourdes  01:19, 14 June 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.