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. Consensus is that the subject doesn't meet the notability guidelines. Hut 8.5 21:56, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G.C. Dilsaver[edit]

G.C. Dilsaver (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)

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO and WP:AUTHOR. Unable to locate significant secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete - I find a few results searching google news, they are a bit bloggy and not really about Dilsaver but about how his book's inspired the blogs author. Results on google books are also mostly about his book and are passing. Neither of these sets of results give anything that would show the subject has enough coverage to write an article that passes NPOV concerns, especially given the promotional nature of the article and of the coverage. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - Maintain as secondary reference supported. All claims have references that have been previously verified.

The claim to notability is the Catholic Pontifical University of America's stating in its review of his work that they consider him "the father of Christian psychology" ^{[1] [2]} His work has been critiqued as the first truly Thomistic psychology by ^[3].

International recognition: ^[4]

and ^[5] His book was chosen and endorsed among the very few books offered with membership from this prestigious international organization.

Dilsaver also has a full page on his work in the introduction to the definitive english edition of ^{[6] [7]}

I took much of the language to describe his work from the website, not as a promotion per se but to accurately convey its nature and claims. John Galvin (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC) — John Galvin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete as mere PROMO for non-notable author of non-notable books promoting his personal, nonnotable FRINGE theory of mental illness. inadequate sourcing found.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The claims about this author are sourced to a few press releases. The material he has written looks as though it falls under WP:FRINGE and there are just not sufficient WP:RS available. Notability has not been established when judged against the criteria listed by the nominator. Drchriswilliams (talk) 08:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Maintain All of the above are taken from independent reviews not "press releases." The above blanket statements for delete are unsupported and do not address the citations notated. The Catholic Pontifical University of America Press is not a fringe institution, Homiletic and Pastoral Review and the London Catholic Herald are highly respected institutions, as is the Broadcaster EWTN and Sapientia Press (who publishes only a few top Catholic writers, unless one is unjustly discounting these institutions because they are Catholic. Dilsaver's book on psychology is foreworded by no one less than Daniel N. Robinson, who has his own bio on Wiki. Fringe does not mean controversial.John Galvin (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck out the vote as a second vote. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Possible keep -- The list of publications is not a long one. However the claim that he is regarded as "father of Christian psychology" (if true) ought to be enough to merit keeping this. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That reference comes from language written to promote his book, not from any independent source I could find. SportingFlyer (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. clearly a major influence in his field,as shown by coverage in reliable sources. DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Which reliable sources are the reliable ones? Are there some that aren't listed here? The introduction to two book about John Paul II's theology cites an article Dilsaver wrote about JPIIs TOB, but the coverage hardly amounts to a page and is not about Dilsaver himself. The Catholic Herald article is in the section, "Comments & Blogs", and is a book review, again not about the individual. "Father of Christian psychology" seems to be cited to PR blurbs, and I can't find an independent source that says anything like that. The book that is supposedly the basis of this claim, "Imago Dei Psychotherapy", gets next to no hits on google scholar, etc. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I've reviewed all the sources; 1&2 are self-promotional; 3 is an article about a book he wrote, probably the best source; 4&5 discuss his writings in the introduction of another book; 6 is a link to when he was on television; and 7 is a link to what appears to be a place to purchase a lecture he gave. An additional source search is largely promotional or lecture-based. I'm reviewing this as a WP:AUTHOR claim since his notability seems to be about the books he's written, and this isn't satisfied under any of the four prongs of WP:AUTHOR. Simply not notable per our guidelines. SportingFlyer (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• On the contrary, All the sources? Or all the sources listed above? When searching Google scholar search various forms of the author's name yielded seven unique citations, searching Imago Dei Psychotherapy yielded­ four more additional unique cites, and searching imago Dei and Dilsaver yielding four more unique additional cites for a total of 15. "Father of Christian Psychology," is a direct quote from the academic press of the Catholic University of America, a singular independent source able to stand alone due to its authority.23:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Galvin (talk • contribs)

All the sources in the article, as you could have figured out easily by the summary. As you note, I can find his thesis very easily on Google Scholar, but I only see a couple other citations searching "G.C. Dilsaver" which wouldn't get him anywhere near academic notability, much less WP:AUTHOR. SportingFlyer (talk) 01:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1 and 2 are clearly not "self-promotional" but a statement of a mostly highly prestigious academic publisher. The following is an example of a cursory search, and it must be noted that within certain circles (i.e., conservative Catholic ones) the following non-secular or non-mainstream sites are held in high esteem and authority:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C27&q=%22imago+dei+psychotherapy%22&btnG=

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C27&q=%22imago+dei+psychology+thomsitic&btnG=

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C27&q=%22imago+dei+dilsaver&btnG=

https://thinkingthroughthesumma.wordpress.com/category/vir-be-a-man-be-virtuous/magnanimity/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Galvin (talk • contribs) 17:47, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9EE9636A623407BE

https://www.academia.edu/13829058/A_Canonical_Investigation_of_the_Infallibility_of_the_Teaching_in_Humanae_Vitae

https://ir.stthomas.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1010&context=sod_mat

referer=https://duckduckgo.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1010&context=sod_mat ft 1

https://pblosser.blogspot.com/2014/08/mutual-submission-in-john-paul-ii-gc.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8npGFrnoDk

https://onepeterfive.com/the-fatherhood-crisis-at-home-in-the-church/

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C27&q=%22g.+dilsaver%22&btnG=

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C27&q=%22gc+dilsaver%22&btnG=

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=7443081998371915052&as_sdt=5,27&sciodt=0,27&hl=en

http://www.womenofgrace.com/en-us/search/default.aspx?q=dilsaver&type=0

https://www.gloria.tv/search/dilsaver

http://catholicism.org/great-book-available-doctor-dilsaver-celebrating-god-given-gender.html

http://crowhill.net/blog/in-reading-a-popes-writings-should-we-take-his-psychology-into-account/

https://pblosser.blogspot.com/search?q=dilsaver

https://onepeterfive.com/the-fatherhood-crisis-at-home-in-the-church/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Galvin (talk • contribs) 16:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.fraternitypublications.com/inspiration.html John Galvin (talk) 16:27, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Thank you for providing more sources... I've looked through all of the ones you provided, but I still don't think he qualifies under WP:AUTHOR. WP:AUTHOR 4 clearly does not apply. For 3, none of his writings would be considered significant enough to be on Wikipedia, so that's out. For 2, he may have created a new concept or theory, but again, I'm missing the significance piece. Which leads us to 1, but here's actually where Google scholar is insightful: in none of your searches do we get past the first page of results. For academics or for people who influence academic works, I'd expect this to be in at least the hundreds. I'll walk away from this discussion now. SportingFlyer talk 19:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If his writings have deemed him to be the "father of Christian psychology" by the Catholic University of America, it should be considered significant enough. Expectations for that number of citations applies to medical or financially lucrative empirical science research, which are both well funded and highly populated. The field of Christian psychology, Christian humanities, or conservative gender studies is neither funded nor well populated, but within these sub-disciplines the author is highly cited.John Galvin (talk) 23:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral There seems to be some mention of his opinions in Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology of the Body which can be considered as coverage in independent sources, although I am yet to find some particular article or news or a book chapter, totally dedicated to him. Excelse (talk) 10:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Using a book blurbs to source anything, especially a grandiose claim that someone is the "father" of a whole field of inquiry, is absolutely ridiculous. In addion, GScholar indicates that the works of Dilsaver have been ignored almost completely, with hardly any citations at all. According to GScholar, the "seminal work" Imago Dei Psychotherapy has been cited a grand total of 3 (three) times since it was published 9 years ago. Even if we follow the count posted above concluding that there were 15 citations, that's woefully short of showing any notability at all. "Seminal works" make an impact, they get cited hundreds of times and are the subject of third party discussion and in-depth reviews. This is a promotional puff piece (note the proud mention of this WP bio on his Amazon author page. Fails every notability guideline by a mile. --Randykitty (talk) 11:37, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per the nom and Randykitty a seminal academic work that has been around since 2009 and barely been cited seems not to point to notability as an author or academic. His notability seems to be limited also the rather pompous unattributed title (considered by many) father of christian psychology coined in a publicity blurb on a bookseller's page probably as a means of boosting the sales does not help. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment “A publicity blurb on a bookseller's page probably as a means of boosting the sales does not help.” If it this were a statement by Harvard or Yale or MIT it is doubtful you would say this. But within the Catholic academic circles the Pontifical Catholic University of America Academic Press is not considered a “bookseller” but a highly prestigious authority. One would think the pejorative bias and ad hominen references should discount, if not disqualify, the most recent “delete” comments, as well as a couple of the previous ones.

• Again, as per citations, comparing the author's philosophical and theological works to mainstream academics, especially those of the highly funded medical and empirical sciences (which is the bulk of Google Scholar content) is not applicable. The author's sub-disciplines are relatively quite small, and more so quite counter-status quo; as such the citations are more than adequate.

• Totally discounting the author's notability regardless of commendatory commentary from such esteemed Catholics or institutions such as Kenneth Baker or Daniel n. Robinson or the London Catholic Herald or EWTN or the page dedicated to his writings in John Paul II The Theology of the Body; A New Translation Based on the John Paul II Archives Translation, Index, and Introduction by Michael Waldstein, or the University of St. Thomas or the many other non-institutional, but still highly respected, populist citations smacks of a certain sectarian elitism, even anti-Catholicism.

• Finally, none of my assertions have been addressed, much less disproved. Instead in support of “delete” only assertion of arbitrary “expectations” or implicit motivations or inapplicable comparisons have been offered.John Galvin (talk) 04:51, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I am very much mistaken John Galvin judging by your user name you have a very close connection to the Catholic University of America who is selling his book on their web site. Regardless of your opinion of this organisation (which is probably right) it is still selling this book for $50 on their page and the "father of christian psychology" is unattributed and here on Wikipedia it is known as a weasel word. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:31, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Randykitty's argument is most compelling. John from Idegon (talk) 05:20, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - John Galvin, meeting our arbitrary requirements is what is required to have an article here. Your argument above seems to presuppose that you have some sort of right to add content here. You don't. If you do not find our requirements to your liking, you are more than welcome to go buy your own domain and servers and start your own website. John from Idegon (talk) 05:20, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable author with little mainstream coverage - fails WP:RS. External links violating WP:EL and WP:PROMO; edit history meeting WP:SPA; and first edit being a revert are all problematic. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:35, 8 March 2018 (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.