Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diego Bubbio

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 no consensus. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Bubbio[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN academic, who does not meet WP:PROF or any other notability guideline. This nomination follows on from another deletion discussion of a colleague of Bubbio's, a page with the same creator. Bubbio clearly has less notability than Vardoulakis, the object of the previous AFD, whose notability was asserted on the basis that his books had been reviewed, and the discussion found that this was insufficient to establish notability in an academic. I proposed deletion already but the creator of the page removed the tag telling me to AFD esperant 00:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 02:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 02:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 02:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 02:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 02:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply nothing for WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF. SwisterTwister talk 04:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GS h-index of 4 [1] insufficient for WP:Prof. Xxanthippe No pass of WP:GNG. Creator of this BLP deserves a WP:TROUT. (talk) 09:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Weak delete, but I might be persuaded otherwise if the current main author/editor, User:Pirhayati, could also put in referenced sections such as Significant papers, other than just books, Career, and critically some balanced discussion on his Government grants, including for example [2]. I suspect there might be just enough to satisfy GNG, rather any Nsubject on its own, ie NEXISTS. Aoziwe (talk) 10:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I stick by GNG. My cliam (or the article's claim) is that "Diego Bubbio has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". So if someone does not agree, his argument should be one of these: 1. There is not significant coverage (based on definition by Wikipedia:Notability). 2. The sources are not reliable. 3. The sources are not independent. I think none of them would be true: 1. the coverage is significant: his work on sacrifice is covered significantly (by important philosophers like Vattimo). 2. The sources are reliable (Peer-reviewed journals). 3. the sources are independent. --Ali Pirhayati (talk) 11:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I argued at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dimitris Vardoulakis, reviews of books in academic journals can by themselves lead to notability of the books reviewed but cannot be sufficient to establish notability for the author of the books. This is for the practical reason that we must have secondary sources in order to write an article about a subject on Wikipedia and academic book reviews typically do nothing other than synopsise the contents of the book under review. So, no, Diego Bubbio as a personage has not received significant coverage anywhere. esperant 11:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is apparently your interpretation of the policy. I think coverage of his book is also a coverage of himself. If your interpretation is specifically mentioned somewhere, please make reference. --Ali Pirhayati (talk) 12:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My interpretation is based entirely on WP:GNG which explains significant coverage and gives examples. What is your interpretation based on? esperant 12:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GNG Says: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." The reviews address Bubbio's views directly and in detail. No original research is needed to extract that Bubbio is an influential scholar of sacrifice. His name is not mentioned trivially, but is mentioned repeatedly on every page in the reviews. --Ali Pirhayati (talk) 12:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said, academic book reviews add very little information, if any, to the primary sources. It is true that they may be taken to reliably report Bubbio's views, but I do not believe knowing his views – which we can know anyway from his primary publications – constitutes the required basis for writing a synthetic encyclopedia article about him. They moreover, as I have argued elsewhere, do not establish the notability of his views. Your claim that 'Bubbio is an influential scholar of sacrifice' strikes me as OR in relation to the book reviews, and indeed untrue: his low citation rate indicates he is not influential by standard academic measures. esperant 23:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I refer to the policies and you continue to express "your" thoughts. "...academic book reviews add very little information, if any, to the primary sources". Where is it mentioned in the policies? Do we have "significant coverage" of Bubbio's works or not? This is a yes-no question and its answer is clear according to GNG. When notable philosophers address Bubbio's views, it is clear that they "recognize" his authority and this recognition is not limited to one book (So the recognition belongs to Bubbio not his book). Also the reviews are "independent", "reliable" and "significant". Again, if you are to oppose this claim, you should emphasize on one of the three sentences I mentioned above and prove their truth. --Ali Pirhayati (talk) 08:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. @Ali Pirhayati: I think you are trying to reinvent the wheel with this roundabout interpretation of the GNG. We fully recognise that more tends to be written about notable academics' work than on the people themselves. That's why WP:PROF exists. However, books reviews and citations in other scholarly works are routine in academia and do not amount to significant coverage. WP:PROF#C1 outlines a very longstanding consensus on how we assess the notability of an academic from the impact of their work, and Bubbio clearly does not pass it. – Joe (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's focus on this sentence: "books reviews and citations in other scholarly works are routine in academia and do not amount to significant coverage". 1. In what way are book reviews routine? Routine does not mention book reviews and apparently this is your interpretation. (By the way it's for notability of events not people) Do you mean "all" the philosophical books receive reviews from "notable" philosophers? 2. Please read the definition of "significant coverage" and show me that these reviews are not a case of it. 3. Criterion one says: "The mere fact that an article or a book is reviewed in such a publication does not serve towards satisfying Criterion 1. However, the content of the review and any evaluative comments made there may be used for that purpose." I'm exactly expressing this content and evaluative comments by notable philosophers. --Ali Pirhayati (talk) 15:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as WP:AUTHOR; an author of multiple published books, with substantive reviews present in the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Multiple published book reviews provide in-depth analysis of his contributions, and the fact that the reviews are of multiple books saves him from WP:BIO1E. He probably passes WP:AUTHOR, a lower bar than WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the last two commenters are incorrect that Bubbio passes WP:AUTHOR. WP:AUTHOR point 2 requires multiple reviews IN ADDITION to creating 'significant or well-known work', not that reviews themselves establish notability. While judgements of what is significant or well-known may vary, I do not believe that there is adequate evidence that Bubbio's work is either significant or well-known. This is precisely why he doesn't pass WP:PROF: he is not widely cited, for one thing. That is to say, I don't believe that WP:AUTHOR can be said to introduce a competing, lower standard for inclusion in Wikipedia, and I think it would be problematic if it did. esperant 03:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Published books receiving numerous reviews and attention in national broadsheets for (controversially) receiving large sums of money. And that's just what's already in the article. Meets the GNG and probably WP:AUTHOR unless we're playing the "guidelines say whatever I want them to say" game. Josh Milburn (talk) 03:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sample review by Patrick Stokes in Critical Horizons, A Journal of Philosophy and Social Theory:

Paolo Diego Bubbio’s Sacrifice in the Post-Kantian Tradition offers a valuable and insightful discussion of the place of sacrifice plays in nineteenth century European philosophy, setting the stage for its emergence as a central theme in subsequent continental thought. Bubbio offers a strong case for the claim that the foundational move of the post-Kantian tradition is a fundamentally kenotic one. Bubbio is also critical of certain excesses in the way sacrifice is discussed in more recent work. However, the case of Kierkegaard in particular suggests kenosis is not so easily kept within the comfortable boundaries Bubbio prescribes for it: its excesses may be an integral part, rather than a hyperbolic distortion, of the logic of sacrifice.

Additional reviews available from:

Secularizing Kenosis: Review of Sacrifice in the Post-Kantian Tradition: Perspectivism, Intersubjectivity, and Recognition, by Paolo Diego Bubbio. ALZNAUER, MARK. Philosophy Today, Apr 01, 2016; Vol. 60, No. 2, p. 609-614

Kenotic Sacrifice and Philosophy: Paolo Diego Bubbio. Vattimo, Gianni. Research in Phenomenology, Sep 01, 2015; Vol. 45, No. 3, p. 431-435

I believe this passes AUTHOR, in addition to the sources already in the article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:44, 24 January 2017 (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.