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 delete. The only keep votes were arguments based on book holdings, but that books are held in libraries does not establish notability. Drmies (talk) 17:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edmond C. Gruss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO and all criteria of WP:PROF Mention of him is either passing mention or are not intellectually independent of each other. StandFirm-JW (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the all-but-unanimous analysis of the most recent AFD. Worldcat also shows at least one of his books is held in many scholarly libraries. Nom appears to be an SPA. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz(talk) 22:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPA: "However a user who edits appropriately and makes good points that align with Wikipedia's communal norms, policies and guidelines should have their comment given full weight regardless of any tag." StandFirm (talk) 23:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, so far as I am aware listing in Worldcat or his books being held by a relatively few scholarly libraries does not establish notability. StandFirm (talk) 23:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't delete just yet - doesn't seem notable at all to me, only Ghits are people selling his books and Gbooks hits are his books. I'm going to have to a more exstensive search to tell if he's really notable, though. Maybe tomorrow. --Madison-chan (talk) 01:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Well, let's actually take a look at those three Keep votes from the last AfD, shall we, rather than just rubber stamping them without a critical glance?

  The first Keep proponent claims that Google News hits indicate the subject is notable. An examination of those hits, however, quote the subject about Ouija boards, and those sources are not at all about the subject. The GNG explicitly holds that sources must discuss the subject in "significant detail." Stories from the subject quoting his book cannot be used to support his own notability.

  The second Keep proponent claimed that "Author is notable in his field and with people interested in the subject matter," an interesting proposition for which he advanced not a shred of proof. If this is in fact the case, reliable sources should say so. Where are they, please? You cannot infer that a subject is notable in a field just because he has some publication credits; I have published just as many gaming books as he has Ouija-based publications, but I don't claim myself to be notable by Wikipedia's standards. The bar of WP:AUTHOR is set a great deal higher than that.

  The third Keep proponent claimed, again absent the slightest bit of evidence proffered by him, "I suspect that the subject of this article is one of the leading scholars in this field." He followed this up with a personal attack on the nom's motives, based on a userbox on the nom's page stating that he is an atheist, apparently inferring that atheists can have no motives for nominating occult-related articles for deletion save for spite.

  Could we have some discussion about the actual merits of the subject, please, rather than a heap of side issues or irrelevancies? Are there any reliable sources attesting to the subject's notability, as opposed to inferences that a claimed list of publications must mean the subject to whom they are ascribed is notable because, well, hrm, he just must be? (By the bye, I am neither an atheist, a Jehovah's Witness or a SPA. For what it's worth.) Ravenswing 06:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per Hullaballoo. A note, the article was completely vandalized with the deletion of most of its contents. I have restored some of the older sourced content. Yeah, makes sense. Delete most of the content then demand the article be erased. Good method, typical for this website, I'm sorry to say. Dwain (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article was not "completely vandalized", but had some content removed which removal was not disputed or changed for months. Further it was not done by me (the nominator). Your claim that I "Delete[d] most of the content then demand[ed] the article be erased" is absurd. Also, neither you nor Hullaballoo have shown any Wikipedia policy which would say why it is notable and you both have questioned the motive of the nominator. Such behavior does not prove anything. StandFirm (talk) 23:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Fair enough, Dwain; I just read over the current content. Tell me, what elements of WP:PROF do you believe are met?

1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.

3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g. the IEEE).

4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.

5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research.

6. The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society.

7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

8. The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area.

9. The person is in a field of literature (e.g writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g. musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC.

From what I can see, none ... unless, perhaps, you have any reliable sources stating otherwise? In which case, why haven't they been posted? Ravenswing 04:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Did a proper Google search today and, sure enough, all I found was people selling his books. Gnews hits are trivial. So, delete without haste. --Madison-chan (talk) 14:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as failing WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.