Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Martin (philosophy)


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 11:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Bill Martin (philosophy)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Verifiability has not been established nor any notability visible. Most if not everything relating to the individual comes from primary sources written by the subject himself, has been in need of independent secondary sources for awhile, uncertain if they exist. The tags on the page have been there for four years, no progress has been made. Xcuref1endx (talk) 00:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 October 2.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 00:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 02:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 02:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 02:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 02:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete non-notable professor. writing a few textbooks you compel your students to read (like many academics do) is not noteworthy. no known influence outside of his own campus. Cramyourspam (talk)
 * Delete notability is not established.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. I just added five references to the article: four reviews of his books (three in academic journals, one in a major newspaper) and another major newspaper profile of him in his role as a prog-rock critic. I'm not convinced he passes WP:PROF, but I think this is enough for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:AUTHOR as it is applied to creative professionals (this subject being an academic, his writings are academic in nature, not necessarily creative, but going with it) I am not certain any of the four categories apply to the subject. Maybe the third one?  Aren't most academics who are tenured and write a book or two, it is likely that some reviews of their publications will exist, thats the nature of academia.  Also, the focus of the article isn't his academic output but rather about his former relationship with a tiny political sect. --Xcuref1endx (talk) 17:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The focus can be changed if necessary. And the prog-rock books appear more aimed at a popular audience than an academic one. It is entirely possible for someone employed as an academic to be notable for something non-academic; as WP:PROF states early on, "it is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under one of the other subject specific notability guidelines." —David Eppstein (talk) 18:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC
 * I understand that the focus could change. He wrote books on philosophy, his academic subject.  If he wrote books, say on politics, that picked up notability under the separate criteria of WP:AUTHOR that would seem to be appropriate.  But the fact that he is an academic philosopher who writes books on philosophy, even the prog-rock thing, the subject may be dealing with something thats popular, but it is still an academic approach to a popular subject.  --Xcuref1endx (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete After loooking carefully, I don't see that the criteria for either WP:PROF or WP:Author are met. Writing a few books and having a few reviews is not enough. Nwlaw63 (talk) 13:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Books with significant reviews is sufficient for NAUTHOR. (It is, admittedly, a very easy criterion to pass). But checking further for books, I see he is actually quite notable, tho the article doesn't say much. His most widely held book Politics in the impasse explorations in postsecular social theory is in over 1200 libraries. (the name is a common name, I verified by birthdate)  It's very easy for a really inadequate article like this to slip by unless someone actually does WP:BEFORE.     DGG ( talk ) 23:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per meeting WP:AUTHOR criteria #3, and per the rationales above provided by User:David Eppstein and User:DGG. NorthAmerica1000 17:27, 10 October 2014 (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.