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. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert C. Priddy[edit]

Relevant discussion at

→ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Priddy

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

Does not appear to pass WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. The 2006 discussion was mired in accusations of bias against the nominator given that it involved mostly adherents and detractors of Priddy's main research topic, the Sai Baba movement. Although there was a WP:PROF guideline back then, nobody even mentioned it. The 2006 AfD was basically just a vote predicated on the fact that Priddy is a published author/academic. Unfortunately that is insufficient for including a biographical article about him in Wikipedia. I should add that Priddy himself posted here some additional accomplishments, mainly bibliography, although it doesn't seem enough to satisfy the inclusion guidelines either, unless you're willing to assume that his articles in the Norwegian press are proof of notoriety (PROF #7 "The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.") Still, some third-party acknowledgment thereof would be preferable, and not one coming from the Sai-Baba-focused crowd. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) Agree - the subject doesn't seem to have made any notable contributions. His own bibliography consisted of classroom textbooks and some translated documents, none of which would be considered noteworthy work for an academic. —Preceding undated comment added 20:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I've had a look at the two books cited for their discussion of Pirddy's work on Sai Baba. The book by Shepherd turned out to be self-published, so I didn't look any further into it, because it's not likely to establish notability according to WP:N. The book by Tulasi can be previewed in GB and has only a passing mention of Priddy in a rather long list of critics on p. 253. On p. 254 it contains one paragraph of biographical information about Priddy, which I've used to expand the article. I have some doubts this enough for a biography on Wikipedia. If we apply this standard though, quite a few of the people having one paragraph in that book, e.g. Tal Brooke should have a page on Wikipedia (his page has been a redirect for over three years now, despite having a fully fledged article at one point [1] and a nearly unanimous "keep" vote in 2005: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tal Brooke). Tijfo098 (talk) 22:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I had a look at this and I'm really not sure why this author has an article, having visited his site it is loaded with inflammatory here say which looks very unscholarly for someone with an academic background. I'd vote deletion based on everything listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.143.95 (talk) 04:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fringe figure. Geschichte (talk) 06:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK, and WP:BIO. Qworty (talk) 22:55, 4 September 2012 (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.