Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Feinberg

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 speedy keep. Nominator withdrew - no harm done, no hard feelings (non-admin closure). St Anselm (talk) 08:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Feinberg[edit]

I withdraw this proposal for deletion per StAnselm (talk · contribs). Thanks, — Jasonasosa 07:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~The John Feinberg page does not have any references. It violates wp:reliable, wp:unsourced, and wp:verify — Jasonasosa 21:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)~~ [reply]

KEEP - Per WP:PROF, "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars ... are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." Since Feinberg is often cited as an expert in theodicy and ethics, this article should stand on the merit of his work. Ἀλήθεια 21:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:PROF, "Every topic on Wikipedia must be one for which sources comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability." Thanks, — Jasonasosa 21:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A GS h-index of 8 is reasonable for theology to pass WP:Prof#C1. Sources seem there. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

~~Comment~~ Weak Keep. I don't see how this satisfies WP:PROF. H-index is 9, by my count, but that's still very low. On the other hand, he's written several books. I'd also point out that the deletion nomination is off-beam: it's WP:N (and specifically WP:PROF and WP:AUTH) that's important here. -- 202.124.73.47 (talk) 00:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not off beam... without verification, you can't have WP:N, WP:PROF, or WP:AUTH. Thanks, — Jasonasosa 00:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citation rates for theology tend to be very low so an h-index of 9 (thanks for your recount) is quite good. Many of the cites are to his books. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Oh, please tell me how h-index even comes into play when there are no citations given to support the main article. And please tell me you are considering this point: "Simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1" at WP:Prof#C1, when the only citations given are for his works. Thanks, — Jasonasosa 01:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jasonasosa, I think you're misunderstanding policy: whether good sources are in the article is an article quality issue; AfD is about whether enough sources exist at all. Precedent certainly says that a high enough h-index is an automatic pass of WP:PROF. I think this guy just scrapes in as a keeper, both under WP:PROF for his h-index, and under WP:AUTH for reviews of his books. -- 202.124.72.77 (talk) 09:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - sourced have been added, and are still being added. This seems like it may have been a hasty nomination. The h-index sounds low, but probably isn't for the subject area. WP:PROF#C6 may also apply here, if the Evangelical Philosophical Society can be considered a "major academic society". (There is a notability tag on that article, but it publishes a peer reviewed journal and is possibly the only society of its kind.) St Anselm (talk) 01:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is highly cited in his field and the article has several sources where his work is reviewed in academic journals. Hokie RNB 01:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is merely an extension of the nominator attempting to keep the subject from being cited as a reference at Genesis creation narrative, and as such is a bad-faith nomination. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per WP:PROF. The nominator may wish to review WP:POINT and WP:BEFORE, particularly since contrary to their nomination the article has been referenced (albeit with primary sources) since its creation. VQuakr (talk) 07:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true. This article has not been properly referenced, nor at the creation of this article. You might want to look at that again. If you think that is a proper reference, then you need to read WP:RS again. The only supporting references that have been added are to support the books he's written. That isn't sufficient for WP:N. Thanks, — Jasonasosa 08:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not write "properly referenced." Your nomination stated that the article did not have any references, which is unequivocally false. VQuakr (talk) 08:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this is not a reference:

"John Feinberg's classic treatment of the problem of evil, The Many Faces of Evil, has been a standard treatment of this philosophical issue for some time now."

Come on man. I stand by my nomination. Thanks, — Jasonasosa 08:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now look at the two online bios immediately below that. VQuakr (talk) 08:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's snowing here. Can someone please close this? Joefromrandb (talk) 12:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NRVE. Topic notability is not based upon whether or not sources are in articles. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:01, 15 September 2012 (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.