Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce Gilley


 * 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 Snow keep. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Bruce Gilley

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Completing nomination for IP 203.214.47.112, who wrote not enough room in wikipedia for EVERY academic - needs to be only the ones that have a large theory or impact to be addition to encyclopedia of human knowledge. ansh 666 17:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 18:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:32, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. We do in fact have room for every academic, although it probably wouldn't be a good idea to use it. However, I think this subject quite clearly passes our notability guideline for academics. He is highly cited, and his work on political legitimacy in particular appears to have made a significant impact, per WP:PROF. His absurd paper about colonialism has also generated quite a lot of coverage (cited in the article), although an article based on that alone would probably be a WP:BLP1E. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 18:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh right. I remember now. Yes, I was wondering why an SPA IP would pop up to try and delete just this article: that may be why. I don't work a lot with academic AFDs so I'll withhold !voting but at first glance he seems easily notable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes I think it's very likely a reaction to the Third World Quarterly paper. I was disgusted at it too, but it seems Gilley was notable beforehand, and unfortunately it has only made him more so. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 22:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - He has numerous pieces with significant citation counts, easily meeting WP:NSCHOLAR. There also appears to be enough significant coverage, outside the coverage of the Colonialism dustup, that he probably meets WP:GNG as well (see The Guardian, Foreign Affairs, and Forbes - and those are just a few). Several other articles, while not in-depth, quote him as a "noted Sinologist".  Onel 5969  TT me 19:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 20:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep for the reasons given above. I think he has made a lot of enemies but that is not our concern. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep but needs more third-party sources. sixty nine   • whaddya want? •  22:09, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG. WP:Not paper.  You doh't have to like him or his paper for him to be included. His oeuvre is far broader than the one paper, and he is noted widely in WP:RSs. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 12:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep passes Passes WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Snowball keep. The amount of source material is astonishing. His work on quantification of political legitimacy alone—a topic not even mentioned in the page at the time of nomination—would merit an article. I've created a section for it and added several references, but they barely scratch the surface of what's available through Google Scholar on this and other topics. I share the revulsion several editors have expressed above for his views on colonialism, but I also agree with their sentiment that you don't have to like the man or his total ideology in order to judge that he merits an article. This isn't really a page for a rescue specialist like me. It's a page for the Fellowship of the Golden Star—for Wikipedians who like to work at the high end of the quality scale, in the rarefied atmosphere of Featured Articles. For those familiar with work at such high altitude, it shouldn't be difficult at all to pin that golden star on this one.
 * —Syrenka V (talk) 01:02, 12 November 2017 (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.