366:
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.
214:
636:, 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.
656:
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
365:
The 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
342:
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
926:
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
694:
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
818:
is not really appropriate here, given the low number of publications that pop up). This constitutes a clear fail of WP:ACADEMIC#1 and I don't see anything that might indicate that he meets any other of the criteria of that guideline. In the absence of any evidence that he might meet
630:
813:
lists 4 publications that have been cited 66 (the one mentioned just before), 49, 8, and 0 times. Doing a "cited reference" search (which also counts citations to books/bookchapters) reveals a handful of extra citations, but nothing above 15. (Looking at an
945:
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
675:
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.
567:
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
178:
606:
474:
809:
Google
Scholar lists a publication from 1987 (Peer Group Antecedents of Severe Love‐shyness in Males) that has been cited 137 times and a few other publications with a smattering of citations. The
696:
964:
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
225:
996:
172:
450:
131:
77:
629:: 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" (
904:
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
591:
995:. 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
884:
701:
394:
1000:
563:
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
783:. Gilmartin is allegedly a professor of psychology in Montana. As far as I can tell, he fulfills nothing mentioned at the relevant notability page,
138:
704:. Still, sometimes they can get somewhat troublesome enough to warrant a warning for anyone unaware of the internet fame this man has received.
695:
hopefully end up being rather uneventful, as sometimes AfDs about subjects that are "internet famous" can be rather tame, such as the ones for
104:
99:
108:
759:
344:
1075:- Does not appear to meet the project's standards for notability. The fandom surrounding this faux science "incel" junk doesn't cut it.
91:
234:
973:
932:
880:
681:
576:
550:
546:
410:
398:
390:
371:
264:
193:
160:
17:
1063:
857:
662:
352:
250:
154:
861:
842:
1120:
1097:
969:
928:
876:
677:
572:
386:
367:
40:
1101:
1084:
1067:
1040:
1012:
977:
959:
936:
917:
888:
832:
801:
773:
742:
715:
685:
666:
647:
618:
598:
580:
527:
508:
488:
464:
430:
375:
356:
61:
965:
150:
95:
1036:
853:
797:
738:
658:
542:
523:
426:
348:
296:
200:
1116:
766:
708:
640:
595:
331:
87:
67:
57:
36:
1093:
1008:
913:
872:
828:
784:
538:
519:
459:
280:
254:
483:
239:
186:
1057:
569:
446:
286:
213:
166:
837:
There are four websites just because of his works on a concept of love-shyness - Love-shy.com,
633:
1027:
955:
788:
729:
614:
504:
417:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1115:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
763:
705:
637:
53:
1004:
909:
858:
http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/4626075.Meet_the_man_so_shy_he_s_never_even_kissed_a_woman/
824:
454:
518:
Non-notable person, small, cult-like following presenting false information in the Wiki.
1080:
810:
721:
478:
838:
223:(dot) love-shy (dot) com/lsbb/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=24171, please note that this is
1053:
947:
865:
820:
1003:
institutions. For the self-help/counseling sector, this seems borderline. Thoughts?
951:
725:
610:
500:
335:
314:
302:
270:
125:
249:
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
862:
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/style/living/relationships/article180507.ece
564:
843:
https://web.archive.org/web/20100807040353/http://loveshyproject.com/index.html
1076:
1022:
Even more borderline when considering the age(s) of the publications. There
1026:
probably books about Randy's Kitty that are held by more institutions.
852:
Also, he and his idea have been mentioned in mainstream news articles -
854:
http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/130627/The-hopeless-romantic
815:
728:- the internet forum has nothing to do with notability on Knowledge.
339:
1109:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1092:- no indication of notability, basically just primary sources.
208:
607:
list of United States of
America-related deletion discussions
475:
list of
Academics and educators-related deletion discussions
243:(agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments,
846:
499:
Lack of biographical sources to establish notability. -
219:
If you came here because you followed the discussion at
414:
121:
117:
113:
823:
independently, there is no proof of any notability. --
185:
839:
http://www.loveshy.de/index.php?nxu=80853793nx31280
445:
This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (
451:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 8
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1123:). No further edits should be made to this page.
334:, the man behind the recently deleted theory of
263:Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected
233:among Knowledge contributors. Knowledge has
220:
199:
8:
605:Note: This debate has been included in the
592:list of Authors-related deletion discussions
590:Note: This debate has been included in the
473:Note: This debate has been included in the
604:
589:
472:
237:regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
257:on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
78:Articles for deletion/Brian G. Gilmartin
75:
908:Gilmartin (or even about his work). --
7:
74:
968:. That's what I was trying to say.
24:
1052:- fails criteria for academics.
864:. Is there really no ground for
762:where he's used as a reference.
212:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
927:mention titles of his books.
449:). I have transcluded it to
253:on the part of others and to
1102:13:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
1085:00:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
1068:21:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
62:03:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
1041:18:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
1013:18:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
978:18:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
960:18:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
950:threshold for inclusion. -
937:18:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
918:17:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
889:16:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
833:15:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
802:14:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
774:06:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
743:14:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
716:06:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
686:10:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
667:06:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
648:06:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
619:03:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
599:02:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
581:22:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
528:21:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
509:18:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
489:16:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
465:15:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
431:18:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
376:10:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
357:10:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
1140:
415:by MalleusMaleficarum1486.
1112:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
847:http://loveshyness.org/
758:: I found a mention in
295:; accounts blocked for
265:single-purpose accounts
235:policies and guidelines
970:MalleusMaleficarum1486
929:MalleusMaleficarum1486
877:MalleusMaleficarum1486
678:MalleusMaleficarum1486
573:MalleusMaleficarum1486
387:MalleusMaleficarum1486
368:MalleusMaleficarum1486
73:AfDs for this article:
551:few or no other edits
399:few or no other edits
553:outside this topic.
401:outside this topic.
247:by counting votes.
226:not a majority vote
966:by Talmer Shockley
760:this journal entry
443:Automated comment:
332:Brian G. Gilmartin
88:Brian G. Gilmartin
68:Brian G. Gilmartin
48:The result was
892:
875:comment added by
659:Mythic Writerlord
621:
601:
554:
491:
467:
413:was acknowledged
402:
349:Mythic Writerlord
330:I strongly doubt
328:
327:
324:
251:assume good faith
1131:
1114:
1033:
891:
869:
794:
770:
735:
712:
697:Christian Weston
644:
596:Northamerica1000
536:
486:
481:
457:
441:
423:
384:
322:
310:
294:
278:
259:
229:, but instead a
216:
209:
204:
203:
189:
141:
129:
111:
34:
1139:
1138:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1121:deletion review
1110:
1094:Volunteer Marek
1031:
870:
792:
768:
733:
710:
642:
484:
479:
463:
455:
421:
312:
300:
284:
268:
255:sign your posts
146:
137:
102:
86:
83:
71:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1137:
1135:
1126:
1125:
1105:
1104:
1087:
1070:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1017:
1016:
989:
988:
987:
986:
985:
984:
983:
982:
981:
980:
940:
939:
921:
920:
896:
895:
894:
893:
850:
811:Web of Science
804:
777:
776:
752:
751:
750:
749:
748:
747:
746:
745:
720:Please review
718:
689:
688:
670:
669:
651:
650:
634:this interview
623:
622:
602:
586:
585:
584:
583:
558:
557:
556:
555:
531:
530:
512:
511:
493:
492:
469:
468:
461:
438:
437:
436:
435:
434:
433:
404:
403:
379:
378:
326:
325:
217:
207:
206:
143:
82:
81:
80:
72:
70:
65:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1136:
1124:
1122:
1118:
1113:
1107:
1106:
1103:
1099:
1095:
1091:
1088:
1086:
1082:
1078:
1074:
1071:
1069:
1065:
1062:
1059:
1055:
1051:
1048:
1047:
1042:
1038:
1034:
1030:
1025:
1021:
1020:
1019:
1018:
1014:
1010:
1006:
1002:
998:
994:
991:
990:
979:
975:
971:
967:
963:
962:
961:
957:
953:
949:
944:
943:
942:
941:
938:
934:
930:
925:
924:
923:
922:
919:
915:
911:
907:
903:
900:
899:
898:
897:
890:
886:
882:
878:
874:
867:
863:
859:
855:
851:
848:
844:
840:
836:
835:
834:
830:
826:
822:
817:
812:
808:
805:
803:
799:
795:
791:
786:
785:WP:NACADEMICS
782:
779:
778:
775:
772:
771:
765:
761:
757:
754:
753:
744:
740:
736:
732:
727:
723:
719:
717:
714:
713:
707:
703:
699:
698:
693:
692:
691:
690:
687:
683:
679:
674:
673:
672:
671:
668:
664:
660:
655:
654:
653:
652:
649:
646:
645:
639:
635:
631:
628:
625:
624:
620:
616:
612:
608:
603:
600:
597:
593:
588:
587:
582:
578:
574:
571:
566:
562:
561:
560:
559:
552:
548:
544:
540:
535:
534:
533:
532:
529:
525:
521:
517:
514:
513:
510:
506:
502:
498:
495:
494:
490:
487:
482:
476:
471:
470:
466:
460:
458:
452:
448:
444:
440:
439:
432:
428:
424:
420:
416:
412:
408:
407:
406:
405:
400:
396:
392:
388:
383:
382:
381:
380:
377:
373:
369:
364:
361:
360:
359:
358:
354:
350:
346:
341:
337:
333:
320:
316:
308:
304:
298:
292:
288:
282:
276:
272:
266:
262:
258:
256:
252:
246:
242:
241:
236:
232:
228:
227:
222:
218:
215:
211:
210:
202:
198:
195:
192:
188:
184:
180:
177:
174:
171:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
152:
149:
148:Find sources:
144:
140:
136:
133:
127:
123:
119:
115:
110:
106:
101:
97:
93:
89:
85:
84:
79:
76:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1111:
1108:
1089:
1072:
1060:
1049:
1028:
1023:
992:
905:
901:
871:— Preceding
806:
789:
780:
767:
755:
730:
709:
641:
626:
515:
496:
442:
418:
362:
336:love-shyness
329:
318:
306:
297:sockpuppetry
290:
279:; suspected
274:
260:
248:
244:
238:
230:
224:
196:
190:
182:
175:
169:
163:
157:
147:
134:
49:
47:
31:
28:
764:Tokyogirl79
706:Tokyogirl79
702:his brother
638:Tokyogirl79
570:WP:CONFLICT
549:) has made
409:Also, this
397:) has made
173:free images
54:Mark Arsten
1005:Agricola44
910:Randykitty
825:Randykitty
539:MysteryBug
520:MysteryBug
485:talk to me
456:cyberbot I
231:discussion
221:http://www
1117:talk page
1054:Cas Liber
611:• Gene93k
480:Jinkinson
411:blog post
340:incelness
287:canvassed
281:canvassed
240:consensus
37:talk page
1119:or in a
1064:contribs
885:contribs
873:unsigned
547:contribs
395:contribs
319:username
313:{{subst:
307:username
301:{{subst:
291:username
285:{{subst:
275:username
269:{{subst:
132:View log
39:or in a
1032:Georgia
993:Comment
952:MrOllie
902:Comment
816:h-index
793:Georgia
769:(｡◕‿◕｡)
756:Comment
734:Georgia
722:WP:PROF
711:(｡◕‿◕｡)
643:(｡◕‿◕｡)
627:Comment
501:MrOllie
422:Georgia
283:users:
179:WP refs
167:scholar
105:protect
100:history
1090:Delete
1073:Delete
1050:Delete
948:WP:GNG
866:WP:GNG
821:WP:GNG
807:Delete
781:Delete
700:] and
657:soul.
632:) and
516:Delete
497:Delete
462:Online
447:step 3
151:Google
109:delete
50:delete
1029:Sandy
906:about
790:Sandy
731:Sandy
726:WP:NN
419:Sandy
343:seen
261:Note:
194:JSTOR
155:books
139:Stats
126:views
118:watch
114:links
16:<
1098:talk
1081:talk
1077:Tarc
1058:talk
1037:Talk
1009:talk
999:and
974:talk
956:talk
933:talk
914:talk
881:talk
829:talk
798:Talk
739:Talk
724:and
682:talk
663:talk
615:talk
577:talk
565:WP:N
543:talk
524:talk
505:talk
453:. —
427:Talk
391:talk
372:talk
363:keep
353:talk
345:here
338:and
187:FENS
161:news
122:logs
96:talk
92:edit
58:talk
1024:are
1001:228
997:150
868:?
787:.
315:csp
311:or
303:csm
271:spa
245:not
201:TWL
130:– (
1100:)
1083:)
1066:)
1039:)
1011:)
976:)
958:)
935:)
916:)
887:)
883:•
860:,
856:,
845:,
841:,
831:)
800:)
741:)
684:)
665:)
617:)
609:.
594:.
579:)
537:—
526:)
507:)
477:.
429:)
385:—
374:)
355:)
347:.
321:}}
309:}}
299::
293:}}
277:}}
267::
181:)
124:|
120:|
116:|
112:|
107:|
103:|
98:|
94:|
60:)
52:.
1096:(
1079:(
1061:·
1056:(
1035:(
1015:.
1007:(
972:(
954:(
931:(
912:(
879:(
849:.
827:(
796:(
737:(
680:(
661:(
613:(
575:(
545:•
541:(
522:(
503:(
425:(
393:•
389:(
370:(
351:(
323:.
317:|
305:|
289:|
273:|
205:)
197:·
191:·
183:·
176:·
170:·
164:·
158:·
153:(
145:(
142:)
135:·
128:)
90:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
