Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles W. Johnson (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 delete - Philippe | Talk 04:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles W. Johnson (philosopher)[edit]

the article is about a blogger who seems to be non-notable. the main argument for keeping it is that he's occasionally cited by roderick long. Bob A (talk) 03:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete inadequately published/cited/quoted to meet WP:PROF which seems the relevant standard. JJL (talk) 04:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. (by RJC) —David Eppstein (talk) 06:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, falls short of WP:BIO. Article has been edited by Radgeek (talk · contribs), who admits to a WP:COI. --Dhartung | Talk 08:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment: The "offending" edits by Radgeek (talk · contribs) amount to 3 factual corrections (birthdate, place of residence, url of blog). Hardly WP:COI stuff. Libertatia (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a scholar who has been cited and quoted by notable people in notable venues. Radgeek's edits are minor and he didn't create the article. There is no reason to suspect that his edits were the type that WP:COI seeks to avoid. This is not a vanity article, and it really isn't a controversial one either. As I pointed out on the article talk page, here, Long quotes Johnson at length in a lecture he delivered at a Mises Institute conference. Walter Block cites a Long & Johnson article here.DickClarkMises (talk) 17:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now per DickClarkMises, I agree that this has the appearance of being notable but hope that this can be expanded. RFerreira (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The citations by other authors are relevant, but not enough to put Johnson above WP:PROF. His appointment at the think tank and the citations by Roderick Long are both related to his work at Auburn, and thus not really independent confirmation of his acceptance in the field. Some published, peer-reviewed works are necessary, or a major award, or a major academic appointment. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 04:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment: the "think tank" of which he's a member, the molinari institute, is extremely small and apparently consists of only five people. Bob A (talk) 09:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but needs expansion/citations. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a basis for this Keep !vote? I can think of some good reasons to think of keeping, but you haven't given any here. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 04:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment:He has an article publishedin Reason magazine, and an article included in a published book. Just thought I'd mention that, in case it counts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.255.84 (talk) 05:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They both count, but they fall far short of the relevant notability standard, which is WP:PROF. Is he among the more important academic philosophers living today? Has he won a major independent award or independent verification of his status as an expert? Not that I have seen. Generally, most people who pass WP:PROF are tenured professors, often at major research centers. Being cited by a notable professor does not in itself confer notability, in the same way that being related to a star doesn't. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 15:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to fall far short of WP:PROF, and we still don't have any third party sources that would attest to notability and allow a pass on WP:BIO instead. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:16, 27 February 2008 (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.