Deletion of Gary Renard (4th nomination)

Comment: for lack of  in .  Reynard's books and films are not notable, making it hard to argue that he passes  #3. or 4.  He fails  #.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 .)  That leaves  #.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  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  in a soruce independent of Reynard and A Course In Miracles.  Nor can I find anything resembling a published profile of him.  Topic fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:RS||WP:AUTHOR||WP:AUTHOR||WP:RS||WP:AUTHOR||WP:SIGCOV||WP:SIGCOV||WP:GNG)

Comment: The DRV for the last review was closed  with linked advice not to re-nominate within two-month's time: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2017_July_28&oldid=793870466#Gary_Renard_.28closed.29. 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: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_Renard&type=revision&diff=793895796&oldid=792737770. 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}}: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_Renard&type=revision&diff=793915288&oldid=793895796. Three hours later, defying the advice of the DRV-closing admin, {{noping|S Marshall}} 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  and #1 and #3 of . 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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ANYBIO||WP:NAUTHOR)

Comment: The  for this article was closed '''less than 10 hours ago''' as a near-unanimous endorsement of the '''no consensus''' closure of the previous AfD https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2017_July_28&oldid=793870466#Gary_Renard_.28closed.29. The closer of the DRV, {{U|RoySmith}}, reminded everyone of #Renominating for deletion, which states "{{xt|If the XfD discussion was closed as ''''no consensus'''', generally do not renominate the page for at least '''two months'''}}", and of #Advice on renominating, which states "{{xt|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: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&oldid=792794128#Gary_Renard, and the DRV was also non-neutrally canvassed in that same thread
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DRV||WP:RENOM||WP:RENOM||WP:DISRUPTIVE||WP:GAMING)

Comment: 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 https://www.amazon.com/Disappearance-Universe-Straight-Illusions-Forgiveness/dp/1401905668/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8 and the book is ranked #15 (although in a very narrow category - #15 in Books > Religion & Spirituality > Occult & Paranormal > Ancient & Controversial Knowledge) https://www.amazon.com/Disappearance-Universe-Straight-Illusions-Forgiveness/dp/1401905668/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8 But, I can't find any mainstream coverage on him or the book.  So, absent reliable coverage, this article clearly fails . 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#Associated works, and redirecting this article there
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Fails to meet  —&nbsp;Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: 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  and it is clear to me that there are no ndependent sources to be had. The content is easily included in the ACIM main article, properly ed, of course
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGEBLP||WP:I||WP:WEIGHT)