Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian G. Gilmartin

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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) 03:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brian G. Gilmartin

AfDs for this article:
Brian G. Gilmartin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I strongly doubt Brian G. Gilmartin, the man behind the recently deleted theory of love-shyness and incelness should be having an article on wikipedia. It is certainly in it's current form unfit to be on here. He is not a notable person and the article links directly to his own website and forum as a form of promotion. His disciples are now, simultaniously, pressuring for the article on incel to be kept, as seen here. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 10:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • keepThe person above me is, once again, as on the article about incel, spreading malicious lies which he/she cannot back up. Gilmartin was never behind the term incel (not some nonsensical and non-existent "theory of incelness"). He is notable enough to have entire websites devoted to his work. The link to the forum should indeed be deleted as it is promotion. The person above me once again lies that there are his disciples pressuring for an article on incel to be kept - the only person arguing for that at some length am I and there is no evidence I am his "disciple" nor was I against the deletion of the love-shy article. If what this person is saying is to be believed he or she would not only need evidence that I am some kind of disciple but evidence that more than one person that is his disciple is pushing for the article to be kept. This, of course, cannot be proven. This person has a very malicious agenda and uses lies such as these under the guise of scientific truth. MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 10:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, none of these statements are true nor can they be proven. A brief look at Google search results will show that the article definitely fulfills WP:N guidelines. Editor above me has no evidence for a cult-like following and has failed to provide any evidence of the false information in the article. Argumentation by this person is extremely dishonest and lazy, being a clear example of WP:CONFLICT MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am finding some things to justify the article, such as a review by the Library Journal about a book on the love-shy theory named "The Love-Shy Survival Guide" ([1]) and this interview, although I'm not sure if the interview site is usable or not as a RS. Now what I am a little leery of is that I seem to remember this guy achieving some infamy via sites such as Encyclopedia Dramatica, mostly through other people espousing his work. I'm not saying that makes him non-notable, just that we should probably be prepared for some trolling here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • He is more then a little "internet famous", yes. But this tends to not be ground for someone being included on wikipedia. I dare say if it weren't for Encyclopedia Dramatica, reddit and his own person love-shy site and forums being picked up on in other place, Mr. Gilmartin would hardly be known to a soul. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 06:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to denote that Brian Gilmartin doesn't have a personal site on love-shyness. That site is run by people completely unrelated to him and he was never involved with it in any way. But it is another indicator of his notability. MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 10:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm more mentioning it because sometimes we get people from the trolling sites who see this sort of thing and then decide to come over and generally decide to come over here and cause trouble. It's more just to give a forewarning to anyone unfamiliar with AfDs that tend to fall that way. It will hopefully end up being rather uneventful, as sometimes AfDs about subjects that are "internet famous" can be rather tame, such as the ones for Christian Weston [[2]] and his brother. Still, sometimes they can get somewhat troublesome enough to warrant a warning for anyone unaware of the internet fame this man has received. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please review WP:PROF and WP:NN- the internet forum has nothing to do with notability on Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just created a web site for my cat, if I do a few more, should she have an article too? As for the sources, those are just in-passing mentions, none of them are about Gilmartin (or even about his work). --Randykitty (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This comparison is quite odd. Your cat didn't have three books written about it, at least one of which has been peer reviewed, nor has it been in the media. Also, some of the sites I listed have hundreds of members from all over the world taking about Gilmartin's ideas. As for the articles, some do mention titles of his books. MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 18:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did you misstype there? If there are three books independently written *about* Gilmartin (as opposed to *by* Gilmartin) they would be good sources to establish notability. The sites you have listed are self published or forums which do not help us meet the WP:GNG threshold for inclusion. - MrOllie (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mistype anything but I didn't express what I wanted to say clearly enough. My point was that there are three books on the subject of love-shyness - 2 written by Gilmartin and by Talmer Shockley. That's what I was trying to say.MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As written, the article basically asserts notability via 2 books he has written: Shy-man syndrome and Shyness and Love. These books are held respectively by 150 and 228 institutions. For the self-help/counseling sector, this seems borderline. Thoughts? Agricola44 (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brian_G._Gilmartin&oldid=1173153461"