Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymond Aaron

{{afdanons}}

:{{la|Raymond Aaron}} ([{{fullurl:Raymond Aaron|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymond Aaron}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

I must first declare that I have been doing my best to assist the user who is the subject of this article to prune self puffery out of it. The more I have done this the more I have formed the view that the gentlemen is not notable, and that this article should not be included here.

I've based this on a very extensive study of the references and on using Google to search for "Raymond Aaron". Of the references the one with most appeal is the Canadian Who's Who. But this follows the [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/whos-who/3540510/Whos-Who---and-why-oh-why.html A&C Black model] (0.9 probability) of publishing self submitted material. That means it does not pass WP:RS and cannot verify any notability.

Of the other references, it is a fact that the books have been published. I have found them in Amazon listings where available. But the authorship or co-authorship of a book is not of itself sufficient to confer notability.

It is a cited fact that Mr Aaron took part in a polar race. It is cited from the race's own web site.

All in all I see this as a borderline article and I am coming down on the side of deletion because I cannot find any true notability. It's the wrong side of the borderline. That's disappointing, because I expected to find notability and verifiability. So I feel that the community should now have a chance to make a decision by consensus. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as non notable for the reasons set out above. Note to Mr. Aaron: in borderline cases which have ample helpings of WP:COI it is always safer to delete. If the subject is notable, a new article will eventually be created by soeone independent of the subject. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Subject hasn't been significantly covered in any reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Aaron has written a book that is very popular in Canada. 693 Google hits. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
• Comment As this stands it is a very general piece of information. If you search for my name on Google, for example, there are just under 4,000 articles with it in, quite a few of which of which refer to me. When I run the search my own blog comes up as the top answer. I am damned good at self promotion. But that doesn't make me notable. What is required for notability is not just a hit, but an item, however short, in a reliable source. Most importantly that needs to be placed in the article as a reference. These were the things I failed to find. If you have had better success please place the relevant reliable source references in the article and let us know that it has been done. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: I don't think his work as author is influential enough to satisfy WP:CREATIVE, nothing else in the bio qualifies. Baileypalblue (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
• I'm changing my vote to Weak Keep based on the reliable source coverage that's been added to the article. I'm still not sure that this mishmash of marginally notable activities adds up to encyclopedic notability, but I'm willing to accept the presumption of the general notability guideline. Baileypalblue (talk) 22:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: I know that I am Raymond Aaron and that possibly my self-comments do not count. But, I will be as impartial as possible. I have written two Chicken Soup For the Soul books. That alone shows that one of the most famous people in the world, Jack Canfield, has selected me as a multiple-co-author, not just a co-author. Parents Soul his NY Times #9. That seems notable -- not many people have written a Top Ten Bestseller. Canadian Soul was #1 book of the week on Chapters (the largest chain of bookstores in Canada) practically every week for about six months after it was released. That seems notable. I have written seven books and I do acknowledge that simply writing books does not necessarily confer notability, it is just another piece of the puzzle showing notability. Also, I am one of only several dozen people who have ever reached The North Pole by foot. It was a month-long, 350-mile foot-race braving -40 degree temperatures and polar bears! That seems notable. I'm in the Canadian Who's Who which yes you are right contains information provided by the biographee -- nevertheless The University of Toronto Press is careful about who is invited to be a biographee. Just being invited seems notable. I have qualified to be a member of MENSA, the top 2% of IQ in the world. I have a document proving that but I am not sure how to use that document as evidence for Wikipedia. Also, there are a variety of lesser achievements which individually may not be notable but together seem to add up to some notability: ran 3 marathons, ran one 100-km ultramarathon, competed in about 50 competitive cross-country ski loppets. I also have explored wild caves, became a full qualified member of the Alpine Club of Canada. I ride the unicycle and the five-foot-tall "giraffe" unicycle. All this seems to add up to something -- possibly a lot. I am asking you to preserve the sanctity of Wikipedia, but I am also asking you to realize that I have some very considerable achievements in my life. Further, though I am indeed a great self-promoter, I have bent over backwards to comply with every request made of me to make my article "flat" and compliant. Please accept my notability and please allow my article. Raymondaaron (talk) 22:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Raymond Aaron
• Comment this will sound very unfair, I apologise in advance for that. All the things you have stated are true, of that I am sure. Some of them, if reported in reliable sources could well add up to notability. They may not. But Wikipedia is not interested in Truth. It is interested in verifiability. A lie is as encyclopaedic as the truth if it is notable (look at conspiracy theories) and verifiable. It is extremely difficult knowing that one has what look like quite magnificent achievements and having to understand that they are only acceptable here when verified independently in reliable sources. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
• Dear Fiddle Faddle ... I understand your distinction. Please allow my article and give me time to VERIFY my claims so that it complies with Wiki's rules. Is that a good deal? Raymondaaron (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Raymond Aaron
• We do not need a deal. This process has a five day duration. I hope you can achieve it. I very much wish to see notability asserted and verified. But this is not my process, it is our process, which includes you. Any deal you make is thus with yourself. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Looks like it's down to the book. It's a best selling series, but does being one of four co-authors on a best selling book (that - correct me if I'm wrong - sells on the name of one author) make him notable? Well, problem is... Raymond Aaron promotional websites dominate the Google rankings! That must take some resources and/or energy. All I can find on Google is sites selling the books and sites promoting the books. Can't find one news item or anything else apart from Who's Who.

:I'll say Delete - I can't find anything. I'll check back regularly and see if any more sources have turned up.

: Ddawkins73 (talk) 01:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

:: - [edit]Ddawkins73 (talk) 12:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

: the top 2% of IQ It would be smart to realise that 135,000,000 other people do too. Ddawkins73 (talk) 02:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I have been asked to be impartial and now I am asking the administrators to also be impartial. I am seeing sarcasm crop into the discussion and I request that we take a higher road. Accusing me of "spamming Google" is not nice, possibly even rude and also has no basis in fact. There is no such thing as spamming Google. I have some websites that offer my products. That's it. Secondly, it is a wonderful achievement to be admitted into MENSA. To make a cutesy comment that 135million other people also qualify is beneath the quality of response I would expect from a Wikipedia administrator. Let's take a higher road. I want the Raymond Aaron article to stand and I want to discuss it wholesomely and cleanly. I have never made any untoward comment against the administrators, even though it has been tough for me to understand the rules. Raymondaaron (talk) 05:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Raymond Aaron
• I agree with you over comments that go too far. By the way, MENSA polarises folk somewhat. It also confers precisely no notability. It is the one membership to leave OFF a resume, for example, since it prevents your being hired. It does tend to confer a perceived notoriety, though. By the way, by no means everyone here is an admin. Most are folk who are just like you and me, ordinary editors. This is a community creating an encyclopaedia using the Wisdom of Crowds. You are part of that, and your opinion matters. It may also not hold sway. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
• I think, though, that you need to look at "achievement" in a different manner. IQ as measured in MENSA exams is an attribute, not an achievement. It's like being black, white, homosexual, heterosexual, left handed etc. One cannot help attributes and one does not achieve them. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
• I'm not an administrator. The administrator makes the final decison. I'm no more or less a part of Wikipedia than you are. That is, completely a part of it, but all I did was register - I'm nothing to do with the Wikipedia Foundation or any subsidiaries. All I'm here for is because I believe in free knowledge and to amuse myself. So... if I'm way out of line, I'll be blocked. Cutesy or not: it's non-notable is the point. I know you didn't literally spam Google, Mr Aaron, but that was a succinct way of putting it. Anyhow, back on track. Ddawkins73 (talk) 12:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Dear FiddleFaddle and Ddawkins ... Thank you for your kind words and your very clear clarifications. I will not include MENSA and I am now hunting for some magazine articles that have been written about me to begin to show notability. Raymondaaron (talk) 13:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Raymond Aaron

• Comment Lets give this a couple of days before posting our conclusions while the subject researches and offers magazine articles. On the other hand, it would be worthwhile for him to make a private copy of the article: he may become more notable over time, even if the article does not survive the present debate. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
• I would not expect this to be closed early. I think we should even overrun by a day or so to allow full opportunity for research. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Question Is he [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=raymond+aaron&hl=en&sa=N&cid=8564259277507475 this Raymond Aaron] (Google News link)? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
• Answer YES, I am that Raymond Aaron. I was so mad that a Canadian federal party would actually be demanding the end of Canada that I launched a class action lawsuit against the party. YES, that is me. Raymondaaron (talk) 16:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Raymond Aaron
• That of itself is by far the most interesting part of the entire article, and it is absent from it. The sources are definitely WP:RS compliant. Perhaps an editor, ideally not Mr Aaron, would add it? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Compiled not Ghost-Written Janet Matthews was hired as an editor to compile into book form copyrighted material that was created by me over the 12 year period in which I created this goal-recording technology. Ms. Matthews may have used the word "ghost-written" in her website, but truthfully she edited into book form what I had created in verbal and written form already. Raymondaaron (talk) 16:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Raymond Aaron
• Matthews's website is interesting but not a wholly reliable source since she reports on herself. It's there as "a reference of interest" for the reader rather than a WP:RS citation Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Question RA wrote: "Parents Soul his NY Times #9". When? Is it here: http://www.hawes.com/2001/2001.htm ? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I have added a lot of verified achievements to add to notability and verifiability. I am getting documentation to confirm that Parent's Soul hit NYTimes #9. I am also getting other verified achievements related to the hit movie "The Secret".

Raymondaaron (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Raymond Aaron

• Keep Raymond Aaron is my mentor and a wonderful teacher. He is a well-recognized teacher of some of the top leaders of our time, including many members of The Transformational Leadership Council. Thousands of people around the world follow his MAINLY goal-setting program and subscribe to his monthly mentor program. Raymond has written two best-selling Chicken Soup for the Soul books at the invitation of two of the world's most notable and credible bestselling authors: Mark Victor Hansen and Jack Canfield. Raymond Aaron has also written the bestselling book, "Double Your Income Doing What You Love" and four other popular titles. He placed well in a polar race in his 60's, something almost no twenty or thirty-year old's have accomplished, making him remarkably notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.168.87.136 (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
• Rhetoric without facts to back it up is irrelevant I'm afraid. I'm sure he is a fine mentor, but that does not make him a candidate for inclusion in an encyclopaedia Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
• If one looks that the membership list of the private members' club known as the Transformational Leadership Council one sees no names that appear to carry any weight whatsoever as "top leaders of our time". I was expecting to see Barak Obama there, but no. I see a set of what appear to be self written biographies selling the wares of the recession - self motivation, self success, groom yourself for stardom. I don't really think that teaching each other to make money is that important for the 99 or so members to have any notability conferred on them by having been invited to join by their best friend. It has a nice name, though. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Nothing mentioned in the article is notable by itself. And notability cannot be achieved by adding up a number of non-notable things. The polar race for example: while I'm sure it's a tough experience, the polar race website quotes that in 6 years only one person did not manage to reach the goal. Also it's a trip to the magnetic North Pole which is considerably further south. Actual North Pole expeditions may well be notable, but adventure holidays like this are surely not. 87.175.68.107 (talk) 23:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

:: Good for a CV, but I agree. It's the court case (most notable thing, but hardly significant coverage) and the 2 co-authored Chicken Soup books (no significant coverage for co-writing them outside of them). There's nothing else.

:: The 'environmental action' - launched a recycling plant apparently in 1971. Reported in regional newspaper. What does "launched" mean anyhow? COI and special pleading is getting in the way here.

:: Ddawkins73 (talk) 00:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

:::Digression What I am at a loss to understand is that the article is now quite damaging to a motivational guru. I cannot see that it shows the gentleman in a particularly good light. If a job applicant presented me with this resume I would interview him out of curiosity, I suppose, but I very much doubt I would make a hiring. I would not spend money on courses, especially in the current financial climate. I have read the complimentary chapters of one of the books on the website, and am unimpressed by everything except their impressive lack of meat. So, with all this massive COI stuff, what, precisely, is in it for the gentleman? For me it damages him, not enhances him. On that basis alone I would put it out of its misery and delete it as a pure kindness, and hope that a good article will be written abiouyt him some day by a disinterested editor. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• Keep much of the argument around whether this article meets notability requirements can be addressed over time...Third party verifiable support for article claims from notable publishers, successful students, academics, and broadcasters can be added to the article and will, in the end, make this article "worthy of notice". Wise Passage February 12, 10:33 EST —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wise Passage (talk • contribs) 03:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

::— Wise Passage (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

:: Speculation (Crystal ball).

: ___

: The events of this discussion make me uneasy. It's the whys of someone wanting to use Wikipedia as an advertising service. Ddawkins73 (talk) 06:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

: e.g registered user with one contribution, to this AfD, makes me uneasy.

: 06:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddawkins73 (talk • contribs)

• Keep. Overall, the sources provided suggest WP:GNG is met. Stifle (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
• STRONG DELETE Beyond the conflict of interest and puffery issues, as well as the multiple edits from one-subject users, the coverage in many of the sources is incidental. While I would ordinarily argue for a mere "Delete" based on WP:NN, I think the context argues for a STRONG DELETE, whatever that exactly means. Tractops (talk) 06:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

: Comment Dear Tractops: I am sorry that my sincere effort to create an honest flat non-puffery article has offended you so. I have learned a lot from other editors and I am doing my best to be a good Wikipedian. For example, it was my habit to make a small change and then save it, just to ensure that I had done it correctly. Now I know that this simply clogs up the system with very many edits. I had no such intention; I just was learning and new. Sorry for that. Raymondaaron (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Raymond Aaron

::With the best will in the world, I think people are concerned about the massive conflict of interest rather than multiple edits. I keep advising you to leave the article alone and let it take its chance. I realise that advice may be discarded, but I advise it again. Wikipedia does not thrive on people who write massive articles about themselves. Ego gets in the way of objectivity. That is why we counsel most strongly against it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2009 (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.