Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wayne Dyer

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.

Result was Keep. — Caknuck 16:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wayne Dyer

Wayne Dyer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Fails notability, there are only a handful of WP:ATT sources that discuss this guy and none of them have very much information so it fails verifiability as well. Tmtoulouse 18:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, nominator has clearly failed to check Google News Archive. A quick check of regular Google results may turn up largely promotional material, but this guy's first publishing success was 33 years ago (and has remained in print). USA Today profile, for example. --Dhartung | Talk 19:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment 90 percent of that archive is Science Daily, not exactly a great source. I am not denying there are a few article here and there about this guy but there is just not a lot to do a very good article on him.Tmtoulouse 19:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Commment How is Science Daily (whatever your opinion of it) not a reliable source? How is USA Today not a reliable source? Please don't wikilawyer. We have a nationally-published newspaper calling him a "best-selling author". --Dhartung | Talk 19:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Science Daily is mostly a source for reprinted press releases. Many of its articles end with a line stating "Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by ...." [1] But even without Science Daily we should be able to produce a decent article about Wayne Dyer. --Metropolitan90 20:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

That's more specific, thank you, Metropolitan90. I apologize also to Tmtoulouse, as I misread the comment as "90% of the (USAToday) article is Science Daily", which didn't make sense. --Dhartung | Talk 08:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The article could use some improvement in its references, but that can be done. According to Publishers Weekly his books have sold 80 million copies worldwide. [2] --Metropolitan90 19:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep, in agreement with Dhartung's points about the reliable sources. Seems to have his own notability, and those sources are perfectly fine. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Eh, its a bad article thats not likely to improve anytime soon. I think its a blackeye and I am tired of it, I think deletion is best but obviously others disagree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmtoulouse (talk • contribs)

Well, the numerous many bad articles on Wikipedia don't tend to enjoy much support for deletion when they otherwise qualify for an article. FrozenPurpleCube 20:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

That almost borders on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Almost. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep. The article could be improved, but how can someone who wrote "one of the best-selling books of all time" be non-notable? It's number 32 on List of best-selling books, the list that begins with the Bible and the Little Red Book. We are virtually obligated to have an article on someone like that. --Rbraunwa 22:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. For all the above reasons. It is not a perfect article but it is the most NPOV bio of Dyer that I can find on the web. Pgc512 00:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - AFD is not cleanup. If there's a problem with the article, fix away - it's very obvious that the subject is notable. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 00:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Tony Fox. The individual is highly notable and may be the best-known medical writer in the English language. --Charlene 01:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep Massively notable author of one of the best-selling books in the history of publishing. Plenty of sources out there if one looks for them. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Article has been improved from reliable sources. --Dhartung | Talk 09:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Regardless of the quality of this particular article, there is no doubt of Wayne Dyer's notability, since notability doesn't expire. He was huge in the '70s. Capmango 03:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The article reads: His 1976 book Your Erroneous Zones has sold over 30 million copies and is one of the best-selling books of all time. Sources are there. What more do you want? RFerreira 06:20, 12 June 2007 (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.