Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Eshleman


 * 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. RL0919 (talk) 12:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Andrew Eshleman

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This person has not received significant coverage from reliable sources. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 11:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete first off the article lacks any reliable sources, we can't have articles sourced just to factulty pages. One contribution to a specialized encyclopedia does not notability make. Nothing suggests his impact is high enough to pass Academic notability guidelines #1, and nothing in the article at all suggests there is any possiblity of his meeting any other academic notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. A single well-cited encyclopedia article and an edited volume are neither enough for WP:PROF nor WP:AUTHOR and there seems to be nothing else of significance. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Page was created in 2005, has no sources - who cares? the question here is whether this chap is notable.  I think not because although his encyclopedia article on "Moral Philosoply" is widely cited, none of his journal articles have been widely cited.  Looks like he is a reputable philosophy prof, but not a notable scholar.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:17, 29 January 2019 (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.