Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Kotsko


 * 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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 10:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Adam Kotsko
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG per only WP:ROUTINE sources. Fails WP:ACADEMIC by being the quintessential "average professor," with no notable achievements as an academic or public intellectual. Grifter84 (talk) 00:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Grifter84 (talk) 00:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment The link searches above led me to articles like, and . These are sources that could contribute to a well-source biography, but the subject is not really the life of the subject of this AFD. The current article relies a lot on his blog as a source so some of the current content may need to be excised.TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Those links flesh out the subject a little, but they don't contribute much to an overall impression of notability. He's been involved in a couple minor Twitter spats (who hasn't?) and one of his books formed part of a basis for a rambling New Yorker piece. Nothing to indicate a significant body of scholarly achievement or popular recognition. Grifter84 (talk) 12:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - This is a very nicely constructed page. Don't we have other things to worry about than this piece on a marginally notable academic at mid-career? No opinion about notability. Carrite (talk) 04:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as WP:AUTHOR with multiple published books with non-trivial reviews. Sample reviews:
 * The Politics of Redemption: The Social Logic of Salvation - By Adam Kotsko. Vidu, Adonis: Reviews in Religion & Theology, Jul 01, 2013; Vol. 20, No. 3. The article reviews the book "The Politics of Redemption: The Social Logic of Salvatio... more
 * Žižek and Theology – By Adam Kotsko. Mackenzie, Jon: International Journal of Systematic Theology, Jul 01, 2010; Vol. 12, No. 3, p. 375-378. The article reviews the book "Zizek and Theology," by Adam Kotsko. more
 * ZIZEK AND THEOLOGY by Adam Kotsko. Tester, Keith: New Blackfriars, Sep 01, 2009; Vol. 90, No. 1029, p. 628-630. The article reviews the book "Zizek & Theology," by Adam Kotsko. more
 * It would be too soon for an article under PROF as assistant professor, but passes AUTHOR. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Reviews in specialist journals carry little more weight than a citation. If the reviews were full-length ones in a a major media outlet like The New York Times or similar the situation might be different (just). Xxanthippe (talk) 06:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC).

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. Early career academic who works in pop-theology is WP:Too soon for WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 12:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC).

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. While the subject does fall (just) below the bar of WP:PROF, his books have been widely reviewed [ (+ sources provided by ), including in mainstream (non-academic) periodicals . He also made remarks that have attracted news coverage on two occasions (although these have been cut from the article due to WP:BLP/WP:UNDUE concerns, I'd argue they still count towards notability). So keep per WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947(c) (m) 04:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak delete per Xxanthippe's reasoning. I just don't see a pass of either of the notability standards in operation here (Author or Academic), which amounts to a fail of GNG. Smart guy, clearly, and I've managed to learn the term "political theology" from reading the article, so that's fun, but not notable. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , I don't understand how failing WP:AUTHOR and WP:ACADEMIC has anything to do with failing WP:GNG. The point of GNG is that it is a separate evaluation metric when other notability standards have not been met.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * A valid point. I misspoke. Given that he fails AUTHOR and ACADEMIC, he would then need to pass GNG, which he doesn't. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - Notability is marginal, but this challenge is Vogionian. There is plenty of dogshit on Wikipedia that needs to go away, chase that instead of this nicely done piece on an academic in mid-career. Carrite (talk) 02:13, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.