2272:. 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).
1366:
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.)
1477:
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.
1853:
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."
1399:"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
603:
1706:- 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
717:, 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.
2543:
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
2002:(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.
840:#.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
1717:. 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
2710:. 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
2139:). They still own the copyright in their contributions. Knowledge (XXG) 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
1852:
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
1845:
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
1500:
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
1476:
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
1471:
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
1398:
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
693:: 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:
2542:
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
1431:
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
1380:
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
Knowledge (XXG) and, occasionally, we arrive at situations where it
1240:
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
1890:
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
1837:
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
1340:
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
961:
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
331:
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
2334:
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
1742:
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,
243:
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
1365:
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
2617:
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
1894:
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
1148:
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
2115:
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
1900:
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
1235:
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
2084:
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
1540:
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 Knowledge (XXG), has perhaps intimidated others from speaking up.
2199:
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
1515:
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
1656:
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.
1559:
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.
2157:(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
1841:
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
1580:
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.
848:
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
386:
1743:
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.
2183:
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 Knowledge (XXG) from one article to the next.
1472:
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
1895:
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.
1294:
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.
1149:
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.
2689:. 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.
1013:
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:
2902:. 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.
2580:
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.
1123:
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.....
2557:---- 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.—
204:
2834:— 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.
998:
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.
1064:
102:
97:
92:
2251:. 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 {{cn}}:
480:
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
380:
2023:
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.
944:
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.
568:
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
1681:
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
1236:
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
2547:
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.
1457:
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.
157:
398:. 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
2339:
for a Knowledge (XXG) 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.—
269:
198:
2447:. I am under no obligation to fulfill any of your demands, requests, stipulations, proclamations, or timelines, particularly not when you have egregiously violated
1341:
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.
1082:
87:
164:
236:
2248:. 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:
2294:. 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...
2817:
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.
2085:
consensus. Alternatively, the article could be deleted and then a fresh redirect created, preserving attribution by one of the methods suggested at
446:
The condition of a Knowledge (XXG) article has no bearing on the subject's notability. If you would like to add to the article, by all means do. See
2116:
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.
1193:
239:. I'm afraid Mr Renard does not meet the minimum threshold for a Knowledge (XXG) biography, in that there is insufficient information about him
2361:
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
2876:
2492:
2452:
2448:
2373:
1403:
the bickering. But this one? I'd close this one as "Delete" with a suggestion that everyone who !voted "procedural keep" should probably read
921:
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.
875:
The condition of a Knowledge (XXG) article has no bearing on its notability. If you would like to add to the article, by all means do. See
620:
The condition of a Knowledge (XXG) article has no bearing on its notability. If you would like to add to the article, by all means do. See
2143:
is about. I expect the closer will avoid that though ---- I expect they'll just fully protect the redirect, keeping the history, and add
1768:
per nom, and per DGG. Not notable. No independent sources. It shouldn't have taken this long to get this inappropriate article removed. --
2192:
2124:
2053:
2031:
1798:
1729:
1396:
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?
1076:
377:
17:
2245:: 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:
962:
the subject's work is notable, and their career can be described, the absence of other biographical data should be irrelevant. Cf
2631:
2570:
2482:
2423:
2352:
2223:
2174:
2102:
1946:
1923:
1865:
1018:. While there is a religious aspect to some of Renard's claims, there is definitely pseudoscience infused throughout his oeuvre.
501:
433:
257:
2715:
2736:
I !voted "Delete" above already, but I'm perfectly okay with a protected redirect. To me, they're functionally the same thing.
1820:
1004:
971:
130:
125:
2906:
2890:
2880:
2850:
2826:
2808:
2779:
2765:
2751:
2731:
2698:
2677:
2656:
2635:
2590:
2574:
2537:
2523:
2486:
2464:
2427:
2401:
2356:
2329:
2303:
2281:
2227:
2194:
2178:
2126:
2106:
2074:
2033:
2011:
1990:
1971:
1908:
1774:
1754:
1731:
1694:
1666:
1632:
1618:
1590:
1575:
1550:
1535:
1510:
1495:
1466:
1452:
1441:
1426:
1390:
1375:
1356:
1335:
1310:
1281:
1252:
1223:
1196:
1173:
1158:
1138:
1050:
1027:
1008:
993:
975:
953:
930:
908:
870:
790:
776:
762:
726:
705:
684:
669:
645:
613:
593:
563:
541:
505:
471:
437:
411:
358:
280:
261:
70:
2210:
route is really quite easy to use and gives us an ironclad assurance that we're fulfilling our copyright licensing promises.—
134:
1981:
As I have said before, we do have the rather bizarre situation (elsewhere) where the book is notable, but the author is not.
2410:, I understood that to mean that you needed time to find your sources. If I've got that wrong, then please post them now.—
2835:
1713:] But, I can't find any mainstream coverage on him or the book. So, absent reliable coverage, this article clearly fails
1241:
that. ) Yes, I came here after ANI. ANI is an appropriate way to call attention to peculiarities like this walled garden.
219:
1208:
complaints about canvassing aside, I've still yet to see evidence of coverage by multiple, independent reliable sources.
660:
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.
186:
117:
2926:
2309:
1846:
House pitched in for the contact lists and other costs, and Fearless publisher D. Patrick Miller contributed his labor.
876:
621:
447:
40:
1190:
2727:
1891:
sent to teach him about the "divine intelligence of the universe" --- religion, reincarnation, forgiveness and more.
1614:
1446:
Ignoring process-wonkery and examining the actual merits of the content? Yes, please, as commonplace as possible. --
1386:
1023:
989:
609:
559:
2872:
1330:
1276:
1000:
967:
572:
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
2317:
884:
629:
455:
2469:
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?—
2154:
1870:
2290:
This page has been little more than fancruft even since is was first nominated back in 2006 when it looked like
1480:
So this problem has a fairly simple solution; delete the fucking article and we can all move on with our lives.
767:
As we now have a discussion about this I do not think this should continue here. Can this please be dropped now?
532:
is a source for the biographical details so I don't feel the lack of sourcing for that information is an issue.
399:
2804:
2745:
2723:
2204:
2147:
1610:
1569:
1529:
1489:
1420:
1382:
1350:
1304:
1217:
1019:
985:
605:
555:
56:. The consensus have been established with more clarity after contributions from editors outside of the topic.
2795:-- the subject of this page. After all this time and attention, there's still no article here. Per BLP, we
826:"books' stated purpose is to reawaken interest in and clarify the core principles of the 1976 spiritual text
420:
I can't seem to see where either of the above two comments address the reasons for deletion that I provided.—
180:
2761:
2533:
2131:
A delete-and-recreate would work but you used the pre-existing article as a basis for the text you added to
1662:
1183:
573:
2864:
2500:
1902:
748:
333:
2844:
2694:
2652:
2519:
2460:
2397:
2325:
2277:
2190:
2122:
2047:
2029:
1986:
1792:
1727:
1517:
1187:
1169:
949:
904:
786:
772:
758:
722:
701:
680:
665:
641:
589:
537:
467:
407:
354:
2711:
981:
2922:
2868:
2673:
1628:
1586:
1546:
1506:
1462:
1437:
1046:
926:
866:
176:
36:
1556:
1404:
581:
1931:, I do not recommend creating an article about the book since it probably would get deleted or merged.
1861:"Community of Faith: NEWS FROM HOUSES OF WORSHIP: 'Disappearance of Universe' author to host workshop"
2899:
2813:
I'm not happy with having the AfD so soon after the last. But we do now have a better solution. So
2686:
2644:
2627:
2566:
2478:
2419:
2348:
2219:
2170:
2132:
2098:
2061:
2020:
1956:
1935:
1783:
1718:
854:
841:
827:
599:
569:
522:
497:
429:
253:
61:
53:
2668:
is rather cursory and indiscriminate in its reviews, and it looks like there's nothing else better.
2366:
2313:
2269:
1070:
896:
888:
880:
742:
633:
625:
459:
451:
373:
2800:
2738:
1562:
1522:
1482:
1413:
1371:
1343:
1297:
1210:
1154:
577:
226:
212:
68:
2719:
2508:
2504:
2439:
2433:
2387:
2362:
2265:
2135:---- so we have to give the people who wrote that material credit for their work (which is in the
1408:
1291:
892:
850:
845:
844:
thought tradition (a small, walled garden) and are not notable books. Nor do they appear to give
837:
821:
817:
809:
391:
Understanding A Course in Miracles: The History, Message, and Legacy of a Spiritual Path for Today
369:
337:
2757:
2529:
2089:. I really don't want to have to watch this, please; my watchlist is quite full enough already.—
2066:
2007:
1963:
1887:
Author Gary Renard received some strange visitors while meditating in his home alone one evening.
1658:
551:
1927:
source likely is not enough to establish notability. Since there is only one solid source about
1001:
The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.
968:
The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.
326:
311:
1112:
739:
2839:
2690:
2665:
2648:
2515:
2456:
2393:
2321:
2273:
2185:
2117:
2043:
2024:
1982:
1940:
1913:
1815:
1788:
1722:
1165:
945:
900:
832:
And also because the books are not notable (I.e., not widely reviewed, cited, or discussed in
782:
768:
754:
718:
697:
676:
661:
637:
585:
533:
463:
403:
350:
274:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
2921:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
2140:
2086:
57:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
2775:
2669:
2445:
2299:
2070:
1967:
1770:
1690:
1624:
1582:
1542:
1502:
1458:
1448:
1433:
1134:
1042:
922:
862:
121:
2859:
2554:
2308:
The condition of a Knowledge (XXG) article has no bearing on the subject's notability. See
2158:
1714:
858:
602:
that attests to the authors of the book itself being notable. Gary Renard is not included.
292:
2822:
2619:
2586:
2558:
2470:
2411:
2340:
2211:
2162:
2090:
1606:
1100:
1088:
489:
421:
245:
1109:- nothing (well that is just a link to the main site - you cannot save your search there)
833:
813:
192:
2903:
1367:
1325:
1271:
1150:
715:
65:
1901:
articles are primarily about his book, I do not think they are enough for him to pass
1094:
2544:
2377:
2003:
1750:
1708:] and the book is ranked #15 (although in a very narrow category - #15 in Books : -->
1248:
816:. Reynard's books and films are not notable, making it hard to argue that he passes
340:. Don’t exacerbate this problem by badgering the participants in the new discussion.
307:
2136:
488:
Mr Renard then you need to provide them. The article has no future if you don't.—
151:
2496:
2437:
2385:
746:
390:
330:
315:
2771:
2295:
2161:
are rather obscure and not widely known! The closer will probably sort it out.—
1686:
1130:
113:
76:
1801:). I was able to find significant mainstream coverage about Gary Renard's book
1231:
Utterly trivial author, unjustified article. His notability in connection with
857:. Nor can I find anything resembling a published profile of him. Topic fails
2818:
2582:
1015:
546:
What? I didn't realize that we needed to find sources that attest to a person
395:
2718:
to be had. The content is easily included in the ACIM main article, properly
1322:
1268:
963:
2553:"badgering". I'm positively required to do so by the second paragraph of
1838:
words: What's the deal with Hay House's The Disappearance of the Universe?
383:
1745:
1243:
751:, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief
2264:. To repeat what I've stated previously, the subject easily meets #2 of
1860:
1810:
2408:
searches for this subject require more targeted searches and take time
521:
There's no consensus regarding notability; unless a source related to
1118:
I google searched and it was a bunch of in-bubble blogs and what not.
1290:"Procedural keep" !votes are just a way of saying "Keep because the
1057:
i saw the notice at the ANI thread. :) I went and looked for refs:
349:, and the DRV was also non-neutrally canvassed in that same thread.
1677:
376:. At least three books have been written entirely about his books (
2256:
2254:. Three hours later, defying the advice of the DRV-closing admin,
1106:
2915:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1907:
Two sources about a book are enough to establish notability per
584:? I don't know, and I see no sources that claim to answer that.
1934:
I therefore support a selective merge to a new section called
530:
235:
I'm renominating this for deletion as I said I would during
385:) and at least 80+ books mention or quote him prominently (
1555:
That is distinctly possible. It's also possible that the
2618:
requires for biographical articles about living people.—
2664:-- I would not consider the book to be notable either;
2384:
in addition to the two-month hiatus guideline, states "
2381:
2370:
2291:
2252:
2249:
2246:
2057:
1903:
Knowledge (XXG):Notability#General notability guideline
736:
694:
347:
304:
147:
143:
139:
2449:
WP:Renominating for deletion#Renominating for deletion
211:
320:, generally do not renominate the page for at least
2493:
WP:Renominating for deletion#Advice on renominating
2453:
WP:Renominating for deletion#Advice on renominating
2374:
WP:Renominating for deletion#Advice on renominating
1950:articles clearly connect Gary Renard and his book,
1411:and please try to remained focused on the content.
225:
2643:at this point, I see no reason not to redirect to
529:notable, it should be kept. His personal website
103:Articles for deletion/Gary Renard (4th nomination)
98:Articles for deletion/Gary Renard (3rd nomination)
93:Articles for deletion/Gary Renard (2nd nomination)
2499:Be warned that some consider renominations to be
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
2929:). No further edits should be made to this page.
824:#.2 because sole claim to notability is writing
346:(including all sorts of false aspersions) here:
1917:review can be used to establish notability for
1041:because we literally just had this discussion.
550:being notable. Seems like it suffers from the
8:
1921:. But as an article about an event listing,
714:This is an interesting question about AFD's
270:list of Authors-related deletion discussions
268:Note: This debate has been included in the
2159:the rules on copying within Knowledge (XXG)
1909:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (books)#Criteria
1675:I should have mentioned that in my! vote.
1432:we really want this to become commonplace?
2862:
267:
2528:Stop badgering people to stop badgering.
1685:get a lot of weight, either way they go.
64:appears to be the most agreeable option.
2714:and it is clear to me that there are no
2060:more information about Renard's book to
781:You responded to my notice, I answered.
2511:the participants in the new discussion.
2442:the participants in the new discussion.
2390:the participants in the new discussion.
1782:Merge/redirect to a new section called
1711:Ancient & Controversial Knowledge)
853:in a soruce independent of Reynard and
299:as a near-unanimous endorsement of the
85:
2407:
2262:less than 10 hours after the DRV close
1721:, and redirecting this article there.
1395:
2062:A Course in Miracles#Associated works
2021:A Course in Miracles#Associated works
1936:A Course in Miracles#Associated works
1784:A Course in Miracles#Associated works
1719:A Course in Miracles#Associated works
316:If the XfD discussion was closed as '
62:A Course in Miracles#Associated works
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
2507:. Don’t exacerbate this problem by
83:
1811:"'Disappearance' Appears Big Time"
738:. This is non-neutral canvassing:
675:Changed to merge, better solution.
312:WP:RENOM#Renominating for deletion
24:
2791:. There's no sourced info on the
2438:Don’t exacerbate this problem by
2386:Don’t exacerbate this problem by
2369:, as I demonstrated in my !vote:
1952:The Disappearance of the Universe
1919:The Disappearance of the Universe
1803:The Disappearance of the Universe
1709:Religion & Spirituality : -->
342:" Moreover, the previous AfD was
88:Articles for deletion/Gary Renard
1947:The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
1924:The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
1866:The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
1284:update16:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
327:WP:RENOM#Advice on renominating
1263:, and if that is not popular,
1079:-- nothing (one hit but false)
735:. This is neutral canvassing:
244:biography should be deleted. —
1:
2836:Template:A Course in Miracles
2832:Merge in A Course in Miracles
2497:When you do renominate, ....
2406:Oh, I'm sorry, when you said
1938:per Timtempleton because the
1929:The Disappearance of Universe
1859:Wilson, Brandy (2006-07-29).
1710:Occult & Paranormal : -->
1809:Garrett, Lynn (2005-03-07).
394:and at least three books by
303:closure of the previous AfD
295:for this article was closed
50:Protected redirect and merge
2907:08:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
2891:13:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
2881:02:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
2851:08:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
2827:20:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
2809:17:26, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
2780:16:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
2766:14:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
2758:Only in death does duty end
2752:13:57, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
2732:12:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
2699:09:07, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
2678:01:52, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
2636:21:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
2591:20:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
2575:16:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
2538:12:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
2530:Only in death does duty end
2524:01:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
2487:00:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
2465:00:25, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
1659:Only in death does duty end
1591:20:52, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
1576:14:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
1551:03:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
400:notability is not temporary
71:16:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
2946:
2838:should also be adapted. —
2657:23:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
2428:23:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
2402:23:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
2357:22:54, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
2330:22:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
2304:21:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
2282:20:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
2228:22:54, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
2195:18:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
2179:18:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
2127:17:33, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
2107:16:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
2075:02:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
2034:00:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
2012:19:06, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
1991:09:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
1972:06:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
1775:00:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
1755:00:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
1732:21:13, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
1695:16:49, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
1667:16:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
1633:23:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
1619:05:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
1536:13:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
1511:23:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
1501:sense to care about that.
1496:18:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
1467:02:06, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
1453:01:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
1442:01:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
1427:18:44, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
1391:18:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
1376:17:55, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
1357:16:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
1336:16:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
1311:16:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
1282:16:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
1253:16:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
1224:15:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
1197:13:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
1174:09:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
1164:I think we can close this.
1159:08:27, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
1139:05:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
1051:02:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
1028:01:20, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
1009:01:14, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
994:01:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
976:22:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
954:15:44, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
931:15:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
909:15:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
891:. The subject meets #2 of
871:15:05, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
791:12:08, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
777:12:01, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
763:11:46, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
727:09:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
706:05:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
685:07:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
670:16:19, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
646:05:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
614:22:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
594:19:19, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
564:16:15, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
542:01:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
506:17:19, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
484:sources that are actually
472:05:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
438:23:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
412:22:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
368:. The subject meets #2 of
359:22:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
281:22:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
262:21:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
2889:- unremarkable person...
2243:Comments on recent events
2155:Talk:A Course in Miracles
306:. The closer of the DRV,
2918:Please do not modify it.
2887:Delete or Merge/Redirect
2770:also am good with that.
2549:And the truth is that I
2451:and repeatedly violated
1065:"Gary Renard" NYT search
32:Please do not modify it.
2260:opened this fourth AFD
2019:- I just added info to
1609:of acting in this way?
344:non-neutrally canvassed
310:, reminded everyone of
2799:have this article. --
2716:WP:Independent sources
1897:
1855:
1518:appeal to consequences
747:Notifications must be
733:non-neutral canvassing
574:Charles Buell Anderson
297:less than 10 hours ago
82:AfDs for this article:
60:redirect and merge to
2747:Tell me all about it.
1885:
1835:
1571:Tell me all about it.
1531:Tell me all about it.
1491:Tell me all about it.
1422:Tell me all about it.
1352:Tell me all about it.
1306:Tell me all about it.
1219:Tell me all about it.
980:Do you disagree with
691:Note to closing admin
598:Here is a source for
482:independent, reliable
2900:A_Course_in_Miracles
2687:A Course in Miracles
2645:A Course in Miracles
2337:the minimum standard
2133:A Course in Miracles
1957:A Course in Miracles
1233:A Course in Miracles
855:A Course In Miracles
842:A Course In Miracles
828:A Course In Miracles
820:#3. or 4. He fails
600:A Course In Miracles
570:A Course in Miracles
523:A Course in Miracles
54:A Course in Miracles
2491:Again, please read
1623:What do you think?
1083:SF Chronicle search
578:Marianne Williamson
237:the deletion review
2896:Protected Redirect
2708:Protected Redirect
2683:Redirect and merge
2514:" (bolding mine).
2310:WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP
1883:The article notes:
1833:The article notes:
1704:Merge and redirect
1206:Protected Redirect
877:WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP
622:WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP
552:proving a negative
448:WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP
2883:
2867:comment added by
2748:
2666:Publishers Weekly
2634:
2573:
2485:
2426:
2380:linked to in his
2365:and #1 and #3 of
2355:
2268:and #1 and #3 of
2226:
2177:
2105:
1941:Publishers Weekly
1914:Publishers Weekly
1816:Publishers Weekly
1605:Are you accusing
1572:
1532:
1492:
1423:
1353:
1333:
1328:
1321:grumble grumble.
1307:
1279:
1274:
1220:
1095:New Yorker search
895:and #1 and #3 of
582:David Hoffmeister
504:
436:
372:and #1 and #3 of
283:
260:
2937:
2920:
2869:Quinton Feldberg
2847:
2842:
2750:
2746:
2743:
2626:
2624:
2565:
2563:
2513:
2477:
2475:
2443:
2418:
2416:
2391:
2382:close of the DRV
2347:
2345:
2335:Renard that are
2318:WP:NOIMPROVEMENT
2259:
2218:
2216:
2209:
2203:
2169:
2167:
2152:
2146:
2097:
2095:
1881:
1879:
1878:
1869:. Archived from
1831:
1829:
1828:
1819:. Archived from
1773:
1680:
1574:
1570:
1567:
1534:
1530:
1527:
1520:goes both ways.
1494:
1490:
1487:
1451:
1425:
1421:
1418:
1355:
1351:
1348:
1331:
1326:
1309:
1305:
1302:
1292:letter of policy
1277:
1272:
1222:
1218:
1215:
1184:advice from elsa
1077:LA Times search
885:WP:NOIMPROVEMENT
836:.) That leaves
752:
630:WP:NOIMPROVEMENT
496:
494:
456:WP:NOIMPROVEMENT
428:
426:
341:
329:, which states "
324:
314:, which states "
279:
252:
250:
230:
229:
215:
167:
155:
137:
34:
2945:
2944:
2940:
2939:
2938:
2936:
2935:
2934:
2933:
2927:deletion review
2916:
2845:
2840:
2739:
2737:
2620:
2559:
2471:
2412:
2341:
2255:
2212:
2207:
2205:afd-merged-from
2201:
2163:
2150:
2148:afd-merged-from
2144:
2091:
1876:
1874:
1858:
1826:
1824:
1808:
1805:in two sources:
1769:
1676:
1607:User:S Marshall
1563:
1561:
1523:
1521:
1483:
1481:
1447:
1414:
1412:
1344:
1342:
1327:(distænt write)
1298:
1296:
1273:(distænt write)
1211:
1209:
1180:Procedural keep
1146:Procedural keep
1107:guardian search
1101:newsweek search
1089:Atlantic search
1039:Procedural keep
525:suggests he is
490:
422:
273:
246:
172:
163:
128:
112:
109:
107:
80:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2943:
2941:
2932:
2931:
2911:
2910:
2893:
2884:
2858:Fails to meet
2853:
2829:
2811:
2801:A D Monroe III
2789:Merge/Redirect
2782:
2768:
2754:
2734:
2701:
2680:
2659:
2641:Merge/Redirect
2616:
2615:
2614:
2613:
2612:
2611:
2610:
2609:
2608:
2607:
2606:
2605:
2604:
2603:
2602:
2601:
2600:
2599:
2598:
2597:
2596:
2595:
2594:
2593:
2285:
2284:
2239:
2238:
2237:
2236:
2235:
2234:
2233:
2232:
2231:
2230:
2110:
2109:
2081:
2080:
2079:
2078:
2037:
2036:
2014:
1996:
1995:
1994:
1993:
1976:
1975:
1899:
1898:
1856:
1778:
1777:
1762:
1761:
1760:
1759:
1758:
1757:
1735:
1734:
1700:
1699:
1698:
1697:
1670:
1669:
1650:
1649:
1648:
1647:
1646:
1645:
1644:
1643:
1642:
1641:
1640:
1639:
1638:
1637:
1636:
1635:
1603:
1602:
1601:
1600:
1599:
1598:
1597:
1596:
1595:
1594:
1593:
1478:
1474:very different
1393:
1363:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1359:
1314:
1313:
1285:
1255:
1226:
1199:
1162:
1161:
1142:
1141:
1124:
1121:
1120:
1119:
1116:
1110:
1104:
1098:
1092:
1086:
1080:
1074:
1068:
1059:
1058:
1054:
1053:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1030:
956:
938:
937:
936:
935:
934:
933:
914:
913:
912:
911:
802:
801:
800:
799:
798:
797:
796:
795:
794:
793:
731:It is clearly
709:
708:
673:
672:
652:
651:
650:
649:
648:
618:
617:
616:
515:
514:
513:
512:
511:
510:
509:
508:
475:
474:
441:
440:
415:
414:
362:
361:
285:
284:
233:
232:
169:
108:
106:
105:
100:
95:
90:
84:
81:
79:
74:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2942:
2930:
2928:
2924:
2919:
2913:
2912:
2908:
2905:
2901:
2897:
2894:
2892:
2888:
2885:
2882:
2878:
2874:
2870:
2866:
2861:
2857:
2854:
2852:
2848:
2843:
2837:
2833:
2830:
2828:
2824:
2820:
2816:
2812:
2810:
2806:
2802:
2798:
2794:
2790:
2786:
2783:
2781:
2777:
2773:
2769:
2767:
2763:
2759:
2755:
2753:
2749:
2744:
2742:
2735:
2733:
2729:
2725:
2722:, of course.
2721:
2717:
2713:
2709:
2705:
2702:
2700:
2696:
2692:
2688:
2684:
2681:
2679:
2675:
2671:
2667:
2663:
2660:
2658:
2654:
2650:
2646:
2642:
2639:
2638:
2637:
2633:
2629:
2625:
2623:
2592:
2588:
2584:
2579:
2578:
2577:
2576:
2572:
2568:
2564:
2562:
2556:
2552:
2546:
2541:
2540:
2539:
2535:
2531:
2527:
2526:
2525:
2521:
2517:
2512:
2510:
2506:
2502:
2494:
2490:
2489:
2488:
2484:
2480:
2476:
2474:
2468:
2467:
2466:
2462:
2458:
2454:
2450:
2446:
2441:
2435:
2431:
2430:
2429:
2425:
2421:
2417:
2415:
2409:
2405:
2404:
2403:
2399:
2395:
2389:
2383:
2379:
2375:
2371:
2368:
2364:
2360:
2359:
2358:
2354:
2350:
2346:
2344:
2338:
2333:
2332:
2331:
2327:
2323:
2319:
2315:
2311:
2307:
2306:
2305:
2301:
2297:
2293:
2289:
2288:
2287:
2286:
2283:
2279:
2275:
2271:
2267:
2263:
2258:
2253:
2250:
2247:
2244:
2241:
2240:
2229:
2225:
2221:
2217:
2215:
2206:
2198:
2197:
2196:
2193:
2191:
2189:
2188:
2182:
2181:
2180:
2176:
2172:
2168:
2166:
2160:
2156:
2149:
2142:
2138:
2134:
2130:
2129:
2128:
2125:
2123:
2121:
2120:
2114:
2113:
2112:
2111:
2108:
2104:
2100:
2096:
2094:
2088:
2083:
2082:
2077:
2076:
2072:
2068:
2063:
2059:
2055:
2052:
2049:
2045:
2041:
2040:
2039:
2038:
2035:
2032:
2030:
2028:
2027:
2022:
2018:
2015:
2013:
2009:
2005:
2001:
1998:
1997:
1992:
1988:
1984:
1980:
1979:
1978:
1977:
1974:
1973:
1969:
1965:
1961:
1959:
1958:
1953:
1949:
1948:
1943:
1942:
1937:
1932:
1930:
1926:
1925:
1920:
1916:
1915:
1910:
1904:
1896:
1892:
1888:
1884:
1873:on 2017-08-08
1872:
1868:
1867:
1862:
1857:
1854:
1850:
1847:
1843:
1839:
1834:
1823:on 2017-08-08
1822:
1818:
1817:
1812:
1807:
1806:
1804:
1800:
1797:
1794:
1790:
1786:
1785:
1780:
1779:
1776:
1772:
1767:
1764:
1763:
1756:
1752:
1748:
1747:
1741:
1740:
1739:
1738:
1737:
1736:
1733:
1730:
1728:
1726:
1725:
1720:
1716:
1712:
1707:
1705:
1702:
1701:
1696:
1692:
1688:
1684:
1679:
1674:
1673:
1672:
1671:
1668:
1664:
1660:
1655:
1652:
1651:
1634:
1630:
1626:
1622:
1621:
1620:
1616:
1612:
1608:
1604:
1592:
1588:
1584:
1579:
1578:
1577:
1573:
1568:
1566:
1558:
1554:
1553:
1552:
1548:
1544:
1539:
1538:
1537:
1533:
1528:
1526:
1519:
1514:
1513:
1512:
1508:
1504:
1499:
1498:
1497:
1493:
1488:
1486:
1479:
1475:
1470:
1469:
1468:
1464:
1460:
1456:
1455:
1454:
1450:
1445:
1444:
1443:
1439:
1435:
1430:
1429:
1428:
1424:
1419:
1417:
1410:
1406:
1402:
1397:
1394:
1392:
1388:
1384:
1379:
1378:
1377:
1373:
1369:
1364:
1358:
1354:
1349:
1347:
1339:
1338:
1337:
1334:
1329:
1324:
1320:
1319:
1318:
1317:
1316:
1315:
1312:
1308:
1303:
1301:
1293:
1289:
1286:
1283:
1280:
1275:
1270:
1266:
1262:
1259:
1256:
1254:
1250:
1246:
1245:
1239:
1234:
1230:
1227:
1225:
1221:
1216:
1214:
1207:
1203:
1200:
1198:
1195:
1192:
1189:
1185:
1181:
1178:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1171:
1167:
1160:
1156:
1152:
1147:
1144:
1143:
1140:
1136:
1132:
1128:
1125:
1122:
1117:
1114:
1111:
1108:
1105:
1102:
1099:
1096:
1093:
1090:
1087:
1084:
1081:
1078:
1075:
1072:
1069:
1066:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1056:
1055:
1052:
1048:
1044:
1040:
1037:
1029:
1025:
1021:
1017:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1006:
1002:
997:
996:
995:
991:
987:
983:
979:
978:
977:
973:
969:
965:
960:
957:
955:
951:
947:
943:
940:
939:
932:
928:
924:
920:
919:
918:
917:
916:
915:
910:
906:
902:
898:
894:
890:
886:
882:
878:
874:
873:
872:
868:
864:
860:
856:
852:
847:
843:
839:
835:
831:
829:
823:
819:
815:
811:
807:
804:
803:
792:
788:
784:
780:
779:
778:
774:
770:
766:
765:
764:
760:
756:
750:
744:
740:
737:
734:
730:
729:
728:
724:
720:
716:
713:
712:
711:
710:
707:
703:
699:
695:
692:
689:
688:
687:
686:
682:
678:
671:
667:
663:
659:
656:
653:
647:
643:
639:
635:
631:
627:
623:
619:
615:
611:
607:
604:
601:
597:
596:
595:
591:
587:
583:
579:
575:
571:
567:
566:
565:
561:
557:
553:
549:
545:
544:
543:
539:
535:
531:
528:
524:
520:
517:
516:
507:
503:
499:
495:
493:
487:
483:
479:
478:
477:
476:
473:
469:
465:
461:
457:
453:
449:
445:
444:
443:
442:
439:
435:
431:
427:
425:
419:
418:
417:
416:
413:
409:
405:
401:
397:
393:
392:
388:), including
387:
384:
381:
378:
375:
371:
367:
364:
363:
360:
356:
352:
348:
345:
339:
335:
328:
323:
319:
318:no consensus'
313:
309:
305:
302:
298:
294:
290:
287:
286:
282:
278:
277:
271:
266:
265:
264:
263:
259:
255:
251:
249:
242:
238:
228:
224:
221:
218:
214:
210:
206:
203:
200:
197:
194:
191:
188:
185:
182:
178:
175:
174:Find sources:
170:
166:
162:
159:
153:
149:
145:
141:
136:
132:
127:
123:
119:
115:
111:
110:
104:
101:
99:
96:
94:
91:
89:
86:
78:
75:
73:
72:
69:
67:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
2917:
2914:
2895:
2886:
2863:— Preceding
2855:
2831:
2814:
2796:
2792:
2788:
2784:
2741:ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
2740:
2712:WP:FRINGEBLP
2707:
2703:
2691:Andy Dingley
2682:
2661:
2649:Power~enwiki
2640:
2621:
2560:
2550:
2548:
2516:Softlavender
2509:WP:BADGERing
2498:
2472:
2457:Softlavender
2440:WP:BADGERing
2434:WP:BADGERing
2413:
2394:Softlavender
2388:WP:BADGERing
2372:. Moreover,
2342:
2336:
2322:Softlavender
2274:Softlavender
2261:
2242:
2213:
2187:TimTempleton
2186:
2164:
2137:terms of use
2119:TimTempleton
2118:
2092:
2065:
2050:
2044:Timtempleton
2026:TimTempleton
2025:
2016:
1999:
1983:Slatersteven
1962:
1955:
1951:
1945:
1939:
1933:
1928:
1922:
1918:
1912:
1906:
1893:
1889:
1886:
1882:
1875:. Retrieved
1871:the original
1864:
1851:
1848:
1844:
1840:
1836:
1832:
1825:. Retrieved
1821:the original
1814:
1802:
1795:
1789:Timtempleton
1781:
1765:
1744:
1724:TimTempleton
1723:
1703:
1682:
1653:
1565:ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
1564:
1557:WP:BLUDGEONy
1525:ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
1524:
1485:ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
1484:
1473:
1416:ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
1415:
1400:
1381:still does.
1346:ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
1345:
1300:ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
1299:
1287:
1264:
1260:
1257:
1242:
1237:
1232:
1228:
1213:ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
1212:
1205:
1201:
1182:- Take some
1179:
1166:Slatersteven
1163:
1145:
1126:
1038:
982:WP:FRINGEBLP
958:
946:Slatersteven
941:
901:Softlavender
825:
808:for lack of
805:
783:Softlavender
769:Slatersteven
755:Softlavender
732:
719:Slatersteven
698:Softlavender
690:
677:Slatersteven
674:
662:Slatersteven
657:
654:
638:Softlavender
586:Power~enwiki
547:
534:Power~enwiki
526:
518:
491:
485:
481:
464:Softlavender
423:
404:Softlavender
389:
365:
351:Softlavender
343:
321:
317:
301:no consensus
300:
296:
288:
276:CAPTAIN RAJU
275:
247:
240:
234:
222:
216:
208:
201:
195:
189:
183:
173:
160:
49:
47:
31:
28:
2720:WP:WEIGHTed
2670:K.e.coffman
2042:Thank you,
1678:E.M.Gregory
1625:Lepricavark
1583:Lepricavark
1543:Lepricavark
1503:Lepricavark
1459:Lepricavark
1434:Lepricavark
1405:WP:CONLEVEL
1073:-- nothing.
1067:-- nothing.
1043:Lepricavark
923:E.M.Gregory
863:E.M.Gregory
241:as a person
199:free images
114:Gary Renard
77:Gary Renard
2756:Likewise.
2622:S Marshall
2561:S Marshall
2501:disruptive
2473:S Marshall
2414:S Marshall
2367:WP:NAUTHOR
2343:S Marshall
2314:WP:NEGLECT
2270:WP:NAUTHOR
2257:S Marshall
2214:S Marshall
2165:S Marshall
2093:S Marshall
2058:have added
1877:2017-08-08
1827:2017-08-08
1332:)evidence(
1278:)evidence(
1258:Procedural
1115:- nothing.
1113:bbc search
1071:WSJ search
897:WP:NAUTHOR
889:WP:SOFIXIT
881:WP:NEGLECT
743:WP:APPNOTE
634:WP:SOFIXIT
626:WP:NEGLECT
492:S Marshall
460:WP:SOFIXIT
452:WP:NEGLECT
424:S Marshall
396:Wayne Dyer
374:WP:NAUTHOR
334:disruptive
325:", and of
322:two months
248:S Marshall
2923:talk page
2904:Lankiveil
2363:WP:ANYBIO
2266:WP:ANYBIO
1409:WP:LAWYER
1368:Nil Einne
1151:Nil Einne
1103:- nothing
1097:- nothing
1091:- nothing
1085:- nothing
964:B. Traven
893:WP:ANYBIO
851:WP:SIGCOV
846:WP:SIGCOV
838:WP:AUTHOR
822:WP:AUTHOR
818:WP:AUTHOR
810:WP:SIGCOV
554:fallacy.
370:WP:ANYBIO
66:Alex Shih
58:Protected
37:talk page
2925:or in a
2877:contribs
2865:unsigned
2545:RoySmith
2378:RoySmith
2376:, which
2054:contribs
2004:Valeince
1842:October.
1799:contribs
1188:Twitbook
308:RoySmith
158:View log
39:or in a
2846:Neonate
2141:WP:PATT
2087:WP:PATT
2017:Comment
1954:, with
1401:without
1288:Comment
1229:Delete.
942:Comment
289:Comment
205:WP refs
193:scholar
131:protect
126:history
2860:WP:GNG
2856:Delete
2797:cannot
2793:author
2785:Delete
2772:Jytdog
2704:Delete
2662:Delete
2555:WP:BLP
2505:gaming
2296:Jytdog
2067:Cunard
2000:Delete
1964:Cunard
1911:. The
1771:Begoon
1766:Delete
1715:WP:GNG
1687:Jytdog
1683:should
1654:Delete
1449:Begoon
1202:Delete
1131:Jytdog
1127:delete
984:then?
887:, and
859:WP:GNG
806:Delete
749:polite
741:. See
658:Delete
632:, and
458:, and
338:gaming
293:WP:DRV
291:: The
177:Google
135:delete
2841:Paleo
2819:Hobit
2815:Merge
2583:Hobit
2503:, or
2455:. --
2432:Stop
2320:. --
2056:). I
1751:talk
1249:talk
1238:essay
1191:space
834:WP:RS
814:WP:RS
753:".--
696:. --
655:Merge
580:, or
486:about
462:. --
336:, or
220:JSTOR
181:books
165:Stats
152:views
144:watch
140:links
16:<
2873:talk
2823:talk
2805:talk
2776:talk
2762:talk
2728:talk
2695:talk
2674:talk
2653:talk
2587:talk
2534:talk
2520:talk
2461:talk
2398:talk
2326:talk
2300:talk
2292:this
2278:talk
2071:talk
2048:talk
2008:talk
1987:talk
1968:talk
1944:and
1793:talk
1787:per
1691:talk
1663:talk
1629:talk
1615:talk
1587:talk
1547:talk
1507:talk
1463:talk
1438:talk
1407:and
1387:talk
1372:talk
1323:L3X1
1269:L3X1
1265:Keep
1261:Keep
1194:tube
1170:talk
1155:talk
1135:talk
1047:talk
1024:talk
1016:e.g.
1005:talk
990:talk
972:talk
959:Keep
950:talk
927:talk
905:talk
867:talk
787:talk
773:talk
759:talk
723:talk
702:talk
681:talk
666:talk
642:talk
610:talk
590:talk
560:talk
538:talk
519:Keep
468:talk
408:talk
366:Keep
355:talk
213:FENS
187:news
148:logs
122:talk
118:edit
2898:to
2787:or
2724:jps
2706:or
2685:to
2495:: "
2436:; "
2316:,
2153:to
1849:...
1746:DGG
1611:jps
1383:jps
1244:DGG
1204:or
1020:jps
986:jps
883:,
812:in
745:: "
628:,
606:jps
556:jps
548:not
527:not
454:,
379:,
227:TWL
156:– (
52:to
2879:)
2875:•
2849:–
2825:)
2807:)
2778:)
2764:)
2730:)
2697:)
2676:)
2655:)
2647:.
2589:)
2551:am
2536:)
2522:)
2463:)
2444:"
2400:)
2392:"
2328:)
2312:,
2302:)
2280:)
2208:}}
2202:{{
2151:}}
2145:{{
2073:)
2010:)
1989:)
1970:)
1863:.
1813:.
1753:)
1693:)
1665:)
1631:)
1617:)
1589:)
1549:)
1509:)
1465:)
1440:)
1389:)
1374:)
1267:.
1251:)
1186:.
1172:)
1157:)
1137:)
1129:.
1049:)
1026:)
1007:)
992:)
974:)
966:.
952:)
929:)
907:)
899:.
879:,
869:)
789:)
775:)
761:)
725:)
704:)
683:)
668:)
644:)
636:.
624:,
612:)
592:)
576:,
562:)
540:)
470:)
450:,
410:)
402:.
382:,
357:)
272:.
207:)
150:|
146:|
142:|
138:|
133:|
129:|
124:|
120:|
2909:.
2871:(
2821:(
2803:(
2774:(
2760:(
2726:(
2693:(
2672:(
2651:(
2632:C
2630:/
2628:T
2585:(
2571:C
2569:/
2567:T
2532:(
2518:(
2483:C
2481:/
2479:T
2459:(
2424:C
2422:/
2420:T
2396:(
2353:C
2351:/
2349:T
2324:(
2298:(
2276:(
2224:C
2222:/
2220:T
2175:C
2173:/
2171:T
2103:C
2101:/
2099:T
2069:(
2064:.
2051:·
2046:(
2006:(
1985:(
1966:(
1960:.
1905:.
1880:.
1830:.
1796:·
1791:(
1749:(
1689:(
1661:(
1627:(
1613:(
1585:(
1545:(
1505:(
1461:(
1436:(
1385:(
1370:(
1247:(
1168:(
1153:(
1133:(
1045:(
1022:(
1003:(
988:(
970:(
948:(
925:(
903:(
865:(
861:.
830:"
785:(
771:(
757:(
721:(
700:(
679:(
664:(
640:(
608:(
588:(
558:(
536:(
502:C
500:/
498:T
466:(
434:C
432:/
430:T
406:(
353:(
258:C
256:/
254:T
231:)
223:·
217:·
209:·
202:·
196:·
190:·
184:·
179:(
171:(
168:)
161:·
154:)
116:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.