Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Burgis


 * 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. ~Swarm~ {sting} 20:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Ben Burgis

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet notability guidelines per WP:NACADEMIC. KidAd (talk) 02:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak delete or redirect to an article about the book. His book, Give Them An Argument: Logic for the Left, is published through John Hunt Publishing, which uses a mix of traditional-model royalty-based publishing and author-pays vanity-press publishing (and deliberately keeps secret which books are which). So we can't really judge its significance merely from its publication, but maybe this is not different from most other books. What we should look for is published reviews. And it has some, together with author interviews, in webzine-like sources rather than the scholarly press:, , , , . If he had another book with the same reception, I'd think he had a strong case for WP:AUTHOR, but as it is there's an issue with WP:BIO1E and WP:TOOSOON. His academic work as listed on Google Scholar is certainly very far from WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:48, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I think he's a very recognizable name in the right circles at this point.  Regardless of his importance in a narrower, more antiquated view of academia, he's a relatively prominent satellite in a lot of online political commentary related to left-leaning economics and progressive politics.  The article's current state is pathetic, but it should be simple, if tedious, to collect well-viewed and well-received pieces he's done with various outlets. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 00:34, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * So you think he has reviewed books, plural? Can you at least name them? Because I couldn't find more than just the one. Recognizability is of no value if we can't back it up with sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment It looks like this is one of those cases where, going by the letter of our guidelines, it would be easier to justify an article on the book than on the author. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 02:22, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:24, 1 October 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   18:59, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete I spent some time looking for notability for him and/or his book. The results from Google Scholar and his CV don't come close to showing he meets WP:NPROF. I also don't see that WP:GNG is met because there's a lack of coverage about him.  So, to me, the question is whether he meets WP:NAUTHOR.  He appears to have one book out, but it's unclear whether or not it's self-published.  He has a number of posts at academia.edu, but that's all self-published material with no editorial review.  The reviews of the book are by blogs and left-leaning sources that are, to me, of questionable reliability and independence.  Academic publications and main stream media generally have not reviewed this book.  It's not apparent to me that this one book is enough to show notability or meet any notability criteria--at least not yet. Papaursa (talk) 21:31, 13 October 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.