Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert McGee

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 no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 18:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McGee

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I'm usually sympathetic to pages on perpetual students but I couldn't find enough reliable sources for this person besides that he got a bunch of degrees and is a professor. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 18:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Sportspeople, Martial arts, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Interesting human interest story and I'm amazed he hasn't been featured in NPR or something... I don't see anything we'd use, no news coverage, nothing, for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 00:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Other than mentions of his degrees and being a professor, I cannot find anything to convince GNG.-- Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Independent sigcov appears in the Fayetteville Observer (more, book review) and Miami Herald (cont., later). His Google Scholar may suggest an NPROF pass too but I don't know the field well enough. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 14:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I think the multiple sources with SIGCOV provided by Hameltion are enough for a GNG pass. JTtheOG (talk) 02:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per GNG and per WP:NPROF#1 based on his GS profile, he seems to be highly cited for his field in ethics/philosophy. Also there is enough evidence for a GNG pass.--hroest 07:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As well as the case for WP:PROF#C1 we also have a case for WP:AUTHOR through multiple published reviews of his books [1] [2] [3] [4]. Each case is borderline but I think together they're enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Heavy self-citation makes WP:PROF#C1 unusable. The subject overwhelmingly cites himself, never seen this before. See my comment below. Lekkha Moun (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. Easily searchable on google and has a myriad of academic articles. BlackAmerican (talk) 08:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment that this article was previously AFD'd under another name. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert W. McGee BlackAmerican (talk) 08:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am considering this article strongly in favour of deletion. In 2022, the article was deleted (AFD#1 Robert W. McGee) and recreated under Robert McGee. The AFD#1 Robert W. McGee is a very interesting read where the subject joined in, seemingly WP:BLUDGEONING in order to justify his article. In terms of martial arts, he has accomplishments to be proud of but nothing to show WP notability, his martial arts championships are in senior age (limited participant divisions). Unverified claims such as "1020 medals" looks like Self promotion/vanity page. I also have a huge problem almost all the citations in the article. Citations such as "AT 72, ROBERT W. MCGEE IS JUST GETTING STARTED" published by Union Institute & University where the subject earned his PHD is absolutely non-independent and unreliable. As another user mentioned, (and I verified) if you look up the work of the subject called “The ethics of tax evasion: Perspectives in theory and practice” the majority of the citations in this work are self-citations from the subject other work. Another of his work “Why people evade taxes in Armenia: A look at an ethical issue based on a summary of interviews”, we noticed self-citation rate of around 80%. Most of the sources are from his own works/self-published. It’s quite concerning. Heavy self-citation technically makes citations WP:PROF#C1 unusable. Lekkha Moun (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe that reduces the case for #C1 notability, but your rant about how all of the other stuff he did is uninteresting does nothing to address the case for WP:AUTHOR notability, and the multiple published reviews by other people of his books. Let me spell that out: we have multiple in-depth sources about his work, independent of that work and reliably published. That also passes WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe article would need an entire rewrite if we base the notability off this criteria (WP:AUTHOR), as barely one sentence mentions his authorship. As for the reviews you mentioned, as you said, I find them borderline and not very compelling. I may be wrong, but I'm not at all convinced of the subject's notability as an author based on WP:AUTHOR, but I would be happy to change my vote if more info is brought forward to strengthen the case for WP:AUTHOR. Edit: I noticed your "Delete" vote on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert W. McGee. I still see evident self promotion as you mentioned and I still don't see great coverage to meet GNG. I am wondering what made you change your mind? Lekkha Moun (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, I didn't find the books and their reviews during the previous AfD. So now I have new evidence for notability that I didn't have earlier. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Editors are still split between keeping and deleting...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The article poorly describes his notability under WP:AUTHOR at present, and does need a significant rewrite to the Career section. But David Eppstein has convinced me that he does indeed meet that criterion. Qflib (talk) 18:11, 13 May 2024 (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.