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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:02, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gurinder Singh Mann (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)

This article is a WP:COATRACK for sexual assault allegations that have never achieved more than passing coverage. More substantial discussion hasn't happened and almost certainly won't happen because the subject fails WP:PROF. The "Global Institute for Sikh Studies" appears to be a one-man website. Guy (Help!) 17:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• delete. Fails WP:PROF. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. In the humanities, we judge by books. Two books published by Oxford University Press is sufficient for anyones's notability. A major contributor to standard subject encyclopedia adds to it. Full professor at a major US research university confirms it. Notability depends on the publications, not the website. How to deal with the problematic material is another matter. DGG ( talk ) 05:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete. Fails WP:PROF.VickSPaul1 (talk) 14:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC) Global Institute of Sikh Studies is a one man show. Other Professors also have books published by Oxford University Press but are not given wikipedia pages and their pages are deleted. §[reply]

find me a person with two books published by OUP that has been deleted for reason of not meeting WP:PROF. Possibly some may have been deleted, but for promotionalism or copyvio. DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm not seeing any coverage in reliable independent sources. If his books are significant there must be reviews. Happy to reconaider if some sources are put forward. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:52, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't know where this "I'm not seeing any coverage" stuff is coming from; clearly, those editors are not looking in the right places. I just added nine published book reviews of four of his books as sources to the article [updated later: 12 reviews of 6 books]. That's enough for a clear pass of WP:AUTHOR. His (former) named chair also gives him a clear pass of WP:PROF#C5. As with some other recent cases, the sexual harassment case is not notable in itself, but needs to be mentioned as a significant aspect of the life of a subject who is notable for other reasons. But the subject should be distinguished from a different person also named Gurinder Singh Mann, director of the Sikh Museum Project in England [1] and author of two more books (Sri Dasam Granth: Questions and Answers, and The Granth of Guru Gobind Singh: Essays, Lectures and Translations). —David Eppstein (talk) 21:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:PROF#C5 for having held a named chair, and passes WP:AUTHOR as well. XOR'easter (talk) 22:50, 8 April 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.