Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William F. Vallicella

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 keep. Cirt (talk) 11:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William F. Vallicella[edit]

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

This bio of a former academic turned blogger does not show notability under WP:PROF, WP:WEB or any other notability standard. Prod was objected to based on hits from Google Books and Google Scholar, but having published articles and books is standard for an academic and not a sign of notability. The sources for the article give good indication of the lack of reliable sources coverage: a two-sentence contributor description from a journal, his own blog, a summary of his (apparently only) book from a defunct online book club, and a Google Scholar search page. RL0919 (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here is a useful search link. When you find articles with "The X argument: a reply to Y" it means his ideas are sufficiently notable to merit a full-length refutation, but this is only slightly above average for a decent philosopher. I would like this to be kept, but I can't make a case for it based on sources I've found. 77.4.59.225 (talk) 21:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep there are 79k GHits for "William F. Vallicella" and 63K for "William Vallicella". This is even more than I have - and I have co-authored a notable book :-). NBeale (talk) 23:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Solid Keep. I was the deprodding editor, and as nom points out I pointed nom to the google results. That not having satisfied nom, I've added many (though not all--I tired) of the relevant citations to the article. IMHO this meets wp:prof in that his research has made significant impact in his scholarly discipline, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. It also meets wp:author in that he is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by his peers, is known for originating significant new concepts, and has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles and reviews.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. (by Epeefleche, approximately the same time as the above comment). —David Eppstein (talk) 06:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is not well written at this point (sorry, Epeefleche, I see your comment about adding refs, but I know this article will be improved considerably eventually as time passes as is the normal course in wiki articles). I think that skews perceptions somewhat. Remember when you handed in typewritten work instead of handwritten work to get a 10% grade boost? Well I think the same thing applies here. I could come back and reconsider after the page is cleaned up. Until then, it's a keeper. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. This is definitely a stub, as the text is severely limited. Once could build it up rather easily by going through the sources, and using them to develop the text. But as the issue at the moment is only notability, I limited myself to trying to reflect that. But your criticism is appropriately placed.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This is not easy to judge, as there is no reliable citation index for his subject. The large number of journal articles , about half in major journals, would argue for keeping, as does his having been selected to write an article in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, an publication with stringent requirements. true, I'd be a lot more satisfied if he held an academic position or had published some actual books. But according to Cambridge University Press [1] he did in fact hold a tenured position, apparently at Case Western Reserve University or possibly Dayton University. DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that information/cite, which I've now incorporated into the article.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Seems not to pass WP:Prof #1 on GS cites but eccentric activities make him notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC). The list of articles could be removed from the WP page; it's not usual. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. Philosophy is a field where citation numbers will nearly always be low for contemporary practitioners, and are pretty useless as an indicator of notability. Academics who do philosophy (as opposed to studying its history) like to present their work as being based on first priciples rather than on the work of others, so rarely cite their peers. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this interesting info. How do we judge then? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Weak keep - passes Wikipedia:Notability (academics) in my opinion, though not with flying colors. Cocytus [»talk«] 03:51, 9 December 2009 (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.