Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Arthur (philosopher)

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. MBisanz ^talk 02:02, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Arthur (philosopher)

[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)

Notability not established. References all refer to his death, not his notability or the notability of his work. ^†Basilosauridae ❯❯❯Talk 19:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:17, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:17, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are references which could be included which do give evidence of the notability of his work, eg [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article" WP:NEXIST. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RebeccaGreen (talk • contribs)
Keep Passes WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF#C1. XOR'easter (talk) 20:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment I disagree that the cited reviews demonstrate that ”The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.” Per WP:PROF#c1. The reviews appear to be fellow academics discussing his work, but it doesn’t support that it had a significant impact on his field. Academics reviewing each other’s work in this way is common and not an indication of significance. ^†Basilosauridae ❯❯❯Talk 21:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The newly added reviews are enough for WP:AUTHOR, and falsify the nomination statement that the references are all about his death not his work. The new statement from the nominator that we should ignore the new sources because they are "common" is both moving the goalposts and unsupported by policy. Notability is about the depth, independence, reliability, and multiplicity of sources, not about how common they are. Sources are also common for national leaders; does that mean we should consider national leaders non-notable? Then why apply the same reasoning to book authors? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:12, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment “Falsifying the nomination” is an unnecessarily harsh accusation; a quick look at the history of the page shows that the citations you are referring to were added after I nominated the page for deletion. I’ve done nothing besides start a discussion regarding deletion and give my opinion on WP policy. ^†Basilosauridae ❯❯❯Talk 06:25, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have a better word for "cause to become false"? The nomination statement may have been true of the references in the article at the time of nomination, and is not true now, so it has become falsified. Besides, AfD nominations should not be about the references that exist in the article, but about the references that can be found more generally — you did look for such references before making the nomination, I hope? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your logic about falsification is ridiculous and I already stated that I disagree that the references given here that have been added to the article by others support notability, so your second point is irrelevant. Because the article has been improved by others I don’t get how you can interpret that as an action by me to make something up, that’s absurd. Not sure why you’re being so confrontational and accusatory, it’s not conducive to a civil discussion about policy. Im not going to engage in this “falsification” debate with you anymore but I’m disappointed by your lack of WP:GOODFAITH. ^†Basilosauridae ❯❯❯Talk 12:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on basis of reviews. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR and WP:HEYMAN. Reviews of his books demonstrate notability as an author. Thsmi002 (talk) 13:00, 19 November 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.