Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edmond C. Gruss


 * 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   no consensus.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 13:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Edmond C. Gruss

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Appears to have limited notability. Article has not improved substantially in six years. Jeffro 77 (talk) 04:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note Another editor attempted to raise an AfD for this article in 2008, but the template parameters were incorrect and the process was not properly completed.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 05:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  — Eastmain (talk • contribs)  10:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  — Eastmain (talk • contribs)  10:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The Google news citations seem to be enough to keep this author. There are a few Google scholar citations, but not many. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per the Google News hits. If there's already half a dozen reliable sources that mention him with his middle initial (and the hits appear to be high quality, referencing one or more of his books in the immediate context) then there's undoubtedly more out there. Note also that this individual has been a religious critic for decades, so there's almost certainly plenty of offline references. Jclemens (talk) 14:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm fine with including every single PhD in the world on Wikipedia, myself — but this article has BLP issues with regards to sourcing of the religious views of the subject. Carrite (talk) 14:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment &mdash; The Gnews archive hits I found amounted to a total of 8 (you have to put quotes around the full name; otherwise the results are peppered with unrelated links), and none of them discuss the subject in any notable way. Recent Gnews hits equals zero. I am uncertain as to the meaning of the results on Google Scholar, but I have to discount his books as self-published and non-neutral.  Stats about the books would be helpful, but there doesn't seem to be any -- unless I don't know where to look.  I have no idea why Carrite would suggest that every PhD in the world should be included in Wikipedia... - CobaltBlueTony™ talk  15:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * .......because PhDs are all experts in some aspect of scholarly endeavor, by definition. Carrite (talk) 19:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * But is it a notable scholarly endeavor? ;-) - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 20:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Simply having a PhD is not an automatic benchmark for warranting an article. Additionally, individuals that might be acceptable as sources are not necessarily notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. I'm going to vote delete per WP:PROF because I cannot find any verifiable evidence that he meets the criteria outlined. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Number of news hits is not necessarily indicative of influence or impact. He's commented in the press a few times about Ouija boards. And once did an interview with an online magazine about being a Jehovah's Witness. Neither of those is notable. Likewise, academically and as an author appears to fail every criteria for WP:PROF. --Whoosit (talk) 22:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per lack of apparent notability. John Carter (talk) 00:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep -- His publications on "cults" appear to be significant. Yes, it is a poor article, but that is a reason for improving not deleting.  In the UK, the status of Professor Emeritus would certainly indicate notability.  I am not clear how readily this title is awarded to those who would be called "retired lecturers" in UK.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Professor and Professor Emeritus don't carry the same weight in the US as in the UK. Emeritus in most cases means they're retired faculty with office privileges—not a distinction of any sort. I wouldn't put too much stock in the title. --Whoosit (talk) 21:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per Jclemens's arguments. -- Europe22 (talk) 23:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. It would seem likely that there would be enough coverage to confer notability in these 67 books. It's past my bedtime so I'm not going to look throught them now, but I would suggest that anyone commenting should check them out so that their opinions will be based on evidence. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've been through them. They almost exclusively mention him in passing--in a footnote or bibliography. None of the books listed are from an academic publishing house, so safe to conclude none of it has been peer reviewed. Most of these books are from small independent or Christian publishing houses which means extremely limited circulation. This speaks to no appreciable influence on mainstream academia or popular debate. Likewise for Gruss's own publications--I can't find much trace of them. The evidence pretty much disqualifies him from WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. Perhaps he is influential in Christian publishing or evangelical debate, but I don't see any evidence to support that right now. --Whoosit (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2010 (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.