Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Scanlan (logic historian)

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. If you have a problem with the closing of this nomination, please take it to deletion review, thank you for assuming good faith. SarahStierch (talk) 03:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Scanlan (logic historian)[edit]

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

There are no reliable sources currently in the article. The only two "sources" in the article are links to articles Scanlan has written. The other three "sources" are not sources at all. I have not been able to find any reliable sources to support the information in the article or to establish that he meets notability guidelines. GB fan 02:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak ~~keep~~ delete. GS h-index of 7 on borderline for philosophy. Noninator should read WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since it was suggested I read WP:Prof, I went back and read it again. I still stand by my deletion rationale as the first bullet point under WP:Prof#General notes says: "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject." As I said in my nomination statement there are no reliable, independent sources in the article and in my searches I couldn't find any reliable, independent sources to add to the article. GB fan 12:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - journal editor suffices Greg Bard (talk) 20:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Editor in chief would suffice, but reviews editor? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in this area, that suffices for me. -GB

Keep per Gregbard. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~Delete ~~for now~~. An h-index of 7 (especially on the inflated GS) does not seem enough for WP:PROF. Reviews editor certainly does not meet WP:PROF, which clearly states that an EIC is notable, but not subordinate editors. --Randykitty (talk) 08:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in the absence of convincing evidence that he passes any of the criteria of WP:PROF, and in the absence of sources that we can use as the basis of an article. He has written a few articles , one of which ("Who were the American postulate theorists?") has a respectable 60 GS citations, but the rest are in the teens at most. He has done some editorial work, but there is nothing apparent from that that distinguishes him from any other academic. I was hoping that, as a full professor in a branch of the humanities, he had written a few books that we could find in-depth reviews of, giving us properly sourced material about his accomplishments if not about his life, but I couldn't find any — there are many books by authors of the same name but they all appear to be different people than the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is a well-known researcher in the history of logic. He is mentioned a number of times within and referenced from, e.g., the John Corcoran entry. He has professional links with John Corcoran, Stewart Shapiro, and others with entries in Wikipedia. There is no compelling reason whatsoever to delete information that is relevant both in its own right and in its links to other, perhaps more famous, scholars. Indeed, this entry is important in the context of doing research on those other, perhaps more famous, scholars with whom he is connected. Deleting this entry would be a travesty. -User:Ishamid

Comment Being mentioned in WP articles does not contribute to notability (WP cannot be used as a source for itself). Having links with notable scholars does not add anything either, because notability is not inherited. --Randykitty (talk) 13:16, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to the quoted source, "it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged". In any case, your interpretation is far too strong; being mentioned may not be a sufficient condition for notability, but it is not an irrelevant consideration. Absolutist interpretations of the guidelines does not serve the mission of Wikipedia: Conditions of sufficiency must not be confused with factors of relevance. In any case, notability is not a purely objective category, and to delete this entry would smack of arbitrariness. Colleague David Eppstein has his own page and is hardly any more objectively notable in scholarly output than Michael Scanlan -- he is even junior to him in the Academy --, yet he wants to delete the latter. This smacks of double standards. It is also extremely annoying to see an academic passing judgment on another as though Wikipedia is a Tenure and Promotion committee in one's own department or college; and using bean-counting criteria to determine notability. David's comment, "I was hoping that, as a full professor in a branch of the humanities, he had written a few books that we could find in-depth reviews of..." is totally inappropriate; again, this is not a T&P committee. Read Scanlan's work for oneself before passing judgment. This bean-counting approach will turn Wikipedia into just another political gatekeeper that shuts out anything that does not meet some arbitrary standard that may itself only be a measure of the popularity of some particular paradigm in a given branch of the Academy. See Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. -User:Ishamid —Preceding undated comment added 17:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you think David Eppstein is not notable, you are of course completely at liberty to take it to AfD (as has been done before). In any case, that article is not the subject of this discussion. So returning to the problem at hand, what you are proposing is actually that WP should become a promotion and tenure ctee, when you say that we should read "Scanlan's work for oneself before passing judgment". What I or anybody else here think of Scanlan's work is totally unimportant, because even if I would say something like "wow, this is earthshattering stuff", that would not constitute a reliable source. We're an encyclopedia reporting on what reliable sources say. Our own opinions are irrelevant. If one wants to put ones own opinions on the web, then one should start a blog... There are often enough precious few extensive sources on academics, most news outlets being more concerned with the antics of the latest teen star than with science. So WP:ACADEMIC tries to make it easier by looking at citation counts, h-indexes, and such. If neither gets over a certain limit, then unfortunately we'll have to decide to delete. Certainly you can understand that we need some kind of minimum standard for inclusion, otherwise we could start including every grad student anywhere and basically become another Facebook. --Randykitty (talk) 19:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Scanlan is not a grad student; he's an Emeritus Professor. I did not suggest that David Eppstein is not notable or should not have his own page; only that he is comparable. The Scanlan article is sufficiently sourced and easy to verify (it can be improved, just as every single article on the Wiki can be improved). If I'm researching the roots of compactness in ancient logic, I'd like to be able to find something on Scanlan's work. And no, bean counting is not a sufficiently objective criterion for establishing notability in a field; taken in isolation it's a lazy bureaucratic benchmark. The division between "reliable sources" and the genuine academics who work on Wiki articles is not as absolute, blind, or objective in reality as you seem to suggest. When in doubt, openness is better than bureaucratic absolutism and closer to the spirit of Wikipedia. And absolutism without scholarly sensitivity will devalue Wikipedia in the end. -User:Ishamid

Well, we have to agree that we disagree then. As far as I can see, what you are saying is that Scanlon is notable because you think so. That may well be correct, but unfortunately, that is not a basis on which we can construct an encyclopedia, we need objective evidence. Either by independent sources that discuss him or his work in depth (preferably) or by showing impact by looking at citations (bean counting indeed, but better than nothing). Here we seem to have neither. --Randykitty (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A very inaccurate assessment of my comments. The guidelines are broader than this. And even David has noted Scanlan's citations etc. There is no absolute line, so better to err on the side of more information than less information. -User:Ishamid

User:Ishamid does not appear to understand the nature of Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not determine who is "important" but who is "notable" in the sense of having been noted by multiple independent reliable sources. There is much discussion of this issue in the archives of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

One of the guidelines here is not making the one making the comment the issue; patronizing a fellow colleague does not help the discussion. In any case, both WP:Prof and WP:Reliable Sources are sufficiently broad and inclusive to accept the Scanlan entry. He is a successful researcher and "It is natural that successful ones should be considered notable" (WP:Prof). An Emeritus Professor is successful almost by definition. As I said above, "When in doubt, openness is better than bureaucratic absolutism and closer to the spirit of Wikipedia." User:Ishamid

Being "emeritus" is nothing special, all you need do is wait out your time until you're retirement age. --Randykitty (talk) 13:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After 12 days of being listed here, no one has come up with any independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage of Scanlan. Has anyone found any? GB fan 02:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

but there;'s no need for one. The question is whether he's a recognized authority under WP:PROF, and this can be determined from citations and similar data. However, I;m uncertain about that. DGG ( talk ) 03:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The "works" are all rather short articles, or reviews of other authors' books. The only source links go all to the site of the publisher of his works. This disagrees with WP:GNG's "significant coverage by reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The subject also falls quite short of both WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. Kraxler (talk) 19:06, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons already supplied by Kraxler. GRUcrule (talk) 14:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I tried cleaning up the article. Ended up having to delete the "education" section since I couldn't find any references to support it. I can't find any evidence that Scanlan means WP:PROF, WP:BASIC, or WP:GNG. Sancho 18:13, 23 December 2013 (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.