Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Canfield
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) ~ mazca t|c 01:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Jack Canfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Part of a rash of quasi notable motivational speakers whose pages serve as little more than a vehicle to self promote and sell books, courses, etc. I have pruned all the uncited material, found a whole slew of other stuff that needs to be cited or should go, and have done the maths on the 100 million books in 47 langauges and 124 titles to discover that means each title has sold 17158 copies. Not really best sellers, those. See Harry Potter for a best seller! Canfield's stuff is peanuts! Or, in my view this does not make the gentleman notable, just industrious. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep--Fiddle Faddle, I'd love to agree with you, but the co-author of so many books (commercial drivel or not) seems notable enough. And if you redo the math, figuring that most of those books are probably sold in English, you'll come up with numbers a bit closer to Harry P. See, those sold 400 million copies, and that soup stuff sold 100 million--I propose that, more than likely, that's more books than most authors sell. The article is a bit of a mess, I grant you that readily, but the guy's notable enough. Drmies (talk) 15:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is assuming that we are not seeing over inflated figures. That is an uncited claim, and, on that basis, we may challenge and remove it unless a citation is found. Books such as these get "sold" by being part of the course materials for an auditorium full of the gullible. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, you're absolutely right--but my source for Potter was the Wikipedia article and for Canfield my source was you ;)--both impeccable! Seriously, this suggests notability, and then throw in this, the second of a long list of hits in this search (six hits from NYT Bestsellers lists on the very first page), and notability is there, it seems to me. What the article needs is a fluffing of those peacock feathers by an objective editor who'll stick a bunch of those references in. Drmies (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I got Canfield's figures from the Canfield article. That has to be a better source than absolutely anywhere! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, you're absolutely right--but my source for Potter was the Wikipedia article and for Canfield my source was you ;)--both impeccable! Seriously, this suggests notability, and then throw in this, the second of a long list of hits in this search (six hits from NYT Bestsellers lists on the very first page), and notability is there, it seems to me. What the article needs is a fluffing of those peacock feathers by an objective editor who'll stick a bunch of those references in. Drmies (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is assuming that we are not seeing over inflated figures. That is an uncited claim, and, on that basis, we may challenge and remove it unless a citation is found. Books such as these get "sold" by being part of the course materials for an auditorium full of the gullible. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He has an entry in Gale's Contemporary Author's, which is good enough for me. Zagalejo^^^ 18:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He also appears in iMDB.com. If someone who is credited with creation of the "Chicken Soup..." series is NN, who really is?Vulture19 (talk) 01:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as meeting WP:AUTHOR (Quote: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews") despite the lowbrow unsophisticated audiences that he sullies (here read irony). With respects to User:Vulture19, we don't consider IMDB as sourcing notability, but it does lead one to a delightful parade of possibilities with even the most cursory of searches. Notability has been asserted and sourced. This AfD can be closed anytime and we can get to the task of addressing the nom's overly generous tagging of the article for cites. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Meets WP:CREATIVE, point three. Notability asserted, sourced too. — neuro(talk) 13:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.