Talk:Eugene Lewis

Vanity?
Is this a vanity page? It looks like it might be, but I could be wrong. Can anyone make an argument for why it is not? Still A Student 14:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Still A Student 23:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that if a person is both a published academic and a former provost of a college, then it is useful to have a stub on that person, for various reasons. . .such as for people trying to do research in a certain field. However, the rhetoric would have to be toned down for this article to be NPOV. Words like "influential" and "effective" ought to be deleted. I didn't write the original article, but it would only take me a couple of minutes to revise it. --Shakantala 21:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted the terms "influential" and "critically acclaimed"; these two things may be true, but there was a lack of citation showing which critics acclaim him, which people are influenced by him, etc. I believe that, now that this page is less glowing, it gives off the impression of a "vanity page" much less than it did before. I believe the article should be kept for several reasons: research on political bureaucracy, or on provosts of New College, etc. --Shakantala 18:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

AfD discussion
Articles_for_deletion/Eugene_Lewis  (aeropagitica)   15:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

ardent critic of the misogyny underlying the works of CS Lewis?
The work cited (2) does nothing to substantiate the claim that Eugene Lewis was an "ardent critic of the misogyny underlying the works of CS Lewis". This surprising claim is far outside of his area of expertise or the contents of his available, searchable publications and should be removed if it can't be verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.224.154.179 (talk) 17:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)