Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Owen Webb

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. The only clear Keep comments are self labeled as weak and the weight of WP:PAG argument supports deletion. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:24, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Owen Webb (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)

Appears to be a non-notable academic with one book to his name and a non-notable award from the 'Dialogue Institute of the Southwest'. Sources comprise the University student newspaper, a faculty colleague and, erm, himself. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMICS. Sionk (talk) 23:20, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Nomination withdrawn, he's chair of a department (according to his university page) so meets WP:NACADEMICS. Sionk (talk) 00:43, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (and procedurally blocking a speedy-keep withdrawal) Simply being a chair of a university department is not an automatic pass of WP:NPROF. I don't see sufficient coverage to meet GNG, and the existing article doesn't demonstrate to me that NPROF is met; I also don't see enough in a Google Scholar search. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep the book is in 245 libraries, a/c worldcat, which is quite high for a book of this nature. There are very likely to be reviews, and they need to be searched for. And he wrote an article on his speciality for Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which does to some extent indicate he is regarded as an authority. DGG ( talk ) 09:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'm not inclined to give the benefit of the doubt. The award is not notable. The book has not been reviewed in MSM. The encyclopedia entry is a qualification of sorts, but not one of especial eminence. He is chair of a philosophy department, but then again I have a strong suspicion that Texas Tech is not in the premier category of philosophy departments. If a Texas-only version of Wikipedia should emerge, he would be a contender, I'm sure.Twitchymeatbag (talk) 02:53, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep He is chair of one of the top MA programs in philosophy and I think the award is also important in showing notability. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 07:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. Texas Tech is not listed in the top 50 graduate philosophy departments.Twitchymeatbag (talk) 01:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This list includes the departments with PhD program. The list I mentioned only includes departments without PhD.

• Delete. One unreviewed book (at least, I didn't find any reviews in GS nor JSTOR) isn't enough for WP:AUTHOR nor WP:PROF and inherited notability by virtue of being associated with a program that only looks good when one artificially eliminates all doctorate-granting programs isn't worth much. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:09, 10 July 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.