Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edmond C. Gruss (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Edmond C. Gruss
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Seems to fail notability criteria. Not all authors necessarily warrant an article. Jeffro 77 (talk) 04:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per my arguments in the first AfD. I note that no one has improved the article with the sources listed and/or discussed there, which is a shame. Jclemens (talk) 01:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Your argument at the first AfD was that you deemed the Google News hits notable. There are six Google News hits. All but one is in passing reference to novelty news items about Ouija boards. One is a Wikipedia mirror about JWs. The Google News results would therefore suggest that he is a reliable source for article about Ouija boards, but do not seem to indicate notability to warrant an article.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 03:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Author is notable in his field and with people interested in the subject matter. The books were all published by regular publishing companies, ie: not self-published and the topics cover a small area of published materials. He or his work is often mentioned by other authors as can be confirmed here: Google BooksDwain (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Notability per WP:BIO is nil. Notability per WP:ACADEMIC is unestablished, and would need to be determined using the citation metrics indicated therein.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep -- It is a long time ago that I had much to do with criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and the like. This is a narrow field, and I suspect that the subject of this article is one of the leading scholars in this field.  The college where he is a professor emeritus is clearly a relatively small one, but that is not unusual for a college that appears mainly to be a specialist theological college.  The nominator describes himself as an atheist and a member of the Jehovah's Witness workgroup.  This makes me suspicious of his motives - wanting to get rid of an article on a person who is a thorn in the side of that fringe group.  Peterkingiron (talk) 12:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I find it amusing, and a little confusing, that you imagine an atheist would care that a particular author is a 'thorn in the side' of a particular religious group. Based on the sources, the author is more notable for his comments on Ouija boards, which I care even less about. The fact remains that the article is of poor quality, has had no expansion in several years, and is of limited benefit to the project.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 13:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting Jeffro how on the same day you wrote the above statement about it not being expanded you actually removed some of the "expanded" informtion from the article that was added the day before. It's understandable since you could "care... less" about the main subject matter that Gruss writes about, you'd not realize the important contributions he has made in his studies and writings concerning those fields. So maybe, instead of nominating an article for which you know nothing about, you should either learn about it or recuse yourself from wanting it deleted. Dwain (talk) 05:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The statement was removed because it was unsourced&mdash;mirrors of Wikipedia articles are not valid sources. Regarding Gruss' other area&mdash;Ouija boards&mdash;about which I have little interest, you are of course welcome to expand the article if there are indeed reliable sources (rather than puff pieces) discussing Gruss' research about that topic. As an aside, the correct expression is couldn't care less.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 07:56, 7 January 2011 (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.