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. kingboyk (talk) 00:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Maximilian de Gaynesford (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 am unsure of this person's notability, a cursory Google search brings up nothing, and all I the books I can find on Google Books is a few books where he's credited as a author, and some books that are just copies from Wikipedia. TheAwesomeHwyh 02:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that a major contributor to this article, @Phenomenologuy: seems to be Gaynesford himself. TheAwesomeHwyh 02:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the relevant COI noticeboard discussion. TheAwesomeHwyh 02:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheAwesomeHwyh 02:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. TheAwesomeHwyh 02:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. TheAwesomeHwyh 02:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. TheAwesomeHwyh 02:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TheAwesomeHwyh 02:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Note that if his chair is an established one instead of a personal one then he qualifies under WP:NACADEMIC #5. However, I can't determine whether it is or not. If kept, the article should be renamed Maximilian de Gaynesford, which appears to be his common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 14:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep despite PEACOCK nature of page, book reviews on JSTOR establish notabliity. Some with, some without middle name.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:AUTHOR and per E.M.Gregory. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• It is tricky to figure out how the Wikipedia:privacy policy and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy should be applied here. There is an exemption in the former for this, but this is such an extreme outlier of a case that I think that an argument can be made for removal of the article and the edit history in the interests of the spirit of the privacy policy, even if the letter allows it. Uncle G (talk) 00:00, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment​ I am not sure what you mean in regards to the articles you have linked. Do you think that you could elaborate further? TheAwesomeHwyh 01:46, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • My concerns about this have been resolved via some oversighting. Uncle G (talk) 12:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am the person referred to in this article, which was created without my knowledge by someone unknown to me in or before 2005. Whether the original decision to include an article about me was correct, I happily leave to others. But if it helps make that decision, I can testify that the information in the body of the article is factually correct - I have checked and corrected it regularly over the years. The name itself, however, ("Robert Maximilian de Gaynesford") is misleading - I am known and publish as 'Maximilian de Gaynesford' - so if Wikipedia continues to keep an article about me, I would ask that this correction be made. Please feel free to contact me if I can be of help. Phenomenologuy (talk) 13:53, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  comment moved to bottom by —Kusma (t·c) 14:18, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, notable academic, and move to the more widely used Maximilian de Gaynesford when this AfD closes. —Kusma (t·c) 14:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If this article is retained, this selection of the most notable academic articles and reviews discussing the work of its subject by others in the field could be included:

Phenomenologuy (talk) 10:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable by our standards: He's got four books out and they've received a decent number of academic reviews, so he passes PROF. Drmies (talk) 15:44, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep GS cites [1] low, but as expected for philosophy. Book reviews routine but pass WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk).
  • I am not sure that "routine" is really the right word. This is not pseudonymous reviewing from Amazon or similar, which would be routine. This is reviews by identifiable experts, some peers in the field. Richard Vallée is another philosophy professor, for just one example. Uncle G (talk) 12:31, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By "routine" I mean that academic books from reputable sources are routinely reviewed in the scholarly literature. There is nothing special about being reviewed in this way. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:24, 28 July 2019 (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.