Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Giles (philosopher)


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

James Giles (philosopher)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Insufficient notability for WP:Academic - maximum cites on Scholar seem to be 24. The theory for which he is supposedly famous, Giles' theory of sexual desire, gets no Scholar hits whatsoever; I've nominated that also for deletion, discussion at Articles for deletion/Giles' theory of sexual desire. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak keep His best-known book has got some reviews although not in well-known publications. His webpage lists several reviews of his work, which seem legit, even if the publications are hardly the biggest academic names.. Shouldn't have a separate article on his theory of sexual desire, which I assume is just the content of his books, and isn't a theory that's been developed by other people. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Insufficient evidence of notability. Editors might also note this: Articles for deletion/Giles' theory of sexual desire. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC).
 * Weak keep The reviews found by Colapeninsula are in respectable journals and go some way to meeting WP:AUTHOR. --Randykitty (talk) 14:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per AUTHOR. -- Green  C  01:25, 27 February 2014 (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.