Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Fleming (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 delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:55, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Chris Fleming (philosophy)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject is only a senior lecturer and his work does not seem to be widely cited or significant enough in his field to pass WP:PROF. References are to works he authored. Nothing to indicate he passes the general notability guidelines either. J bh Talk  14:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  J bh  Talk  14:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  J bh  Talk  14:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  J bh  Talk  14:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Response: There are numerous other Senior Lecturers included in Wikipedia (even from the same institution!). The title "Senior Lecturer" bears no necessary relationship to a scholar's output. (Many well-known authors are sometimes just "Adjunct Faculty.") Secondly, it is simply untrue that the article refers only to Flemming's own work. This is simply a factual error. As for the quality and impact of Fleming's work, one should perhaps investigate the references listed. Two of his books have been described as the best in their field. Eric Gans (Distinguished Professor, UCLA) made the claim that Fleming's book on Girard was "clearly the best". The book on conspiracy theory is co-written with Emma Jane, a Commonwealth Writers Prize-winning author in her own right. With respect to this book, Professor Andrew McKenna reviewed it and remarked "This opulently researched book is probably the only one you need to read on this topic." Finally, if the case for the regard of his work needs any more emphasis, Rene Girard, one of the premier intellectuals of the 20th century, Stanford Professor and "immortal" of the French Academy wrote of Fleming's work on mimetic theory that it was "uniquely profound,” “amazingly well-informed,” “the most lucid, efficient and up-to-date discussion of the subject I have ever encountered,” “original and powerful,” and “remarkable” (among other things). That book is now recommended in Girard’s own published work (in Girard's book "Mimesis and Theory," for instance, the book is referred to (again) as "the best overall" (p. 294), and is the only English-language reference to Girard in the prestigious Dictionnaire des sciences humaines. Other work of Flemings has been cited in (looking quickly) Rhetoric and Public Affairs, Angelaki, Contagion, Dialogue, International Journal of Cultural Studies, the Oxford Literary Review, Shakespeare, Journal of the American Academy of Religion, and Philosophy & Rhetoric. According to Academia.edu, Fleming is in the top 2% of scholars on that website read or searched-for online. I am able to cite many cases of scholars online that do not really approach this. I could probably gather more data from Dr Fleming himself, but he'd probably say "Oh, forget about it!"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by EggplantDancer (talk • contribs) 14:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)  — EggplantDancer (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * do you have a connection to Chris Fleming? LibStar (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * In what context were those comments made? They sound like jacket notes or similar. Material associated with publishers PR and the like does not contribute to notability. If these comments were made in things like independent articles or journal book reviews they would be more indicative of notability. References 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 all list him as an author. Reference 3 lists several works which, per the statement it is attached to, seem to be "his work on Rene Gerard" ie material he wrote. What I do not see are any works about Chris Fleming rather than by Chris Fleming. That is what would be needed to get him over the general notability requirements. To get him over the notability requirements for academics we would need to show a very high citation rate for several of his works, many reviews of his works in journals, others doing works on him, an appointment to something equivalent to the Royal Society or National Academy of Sciences. I simply can not find such sources but should they be presented I would happily withdraw this nomination. (Please remember to sign your posts with . This will insert your user name and a time stamp when you save the page.)  J bh  Talk  18:34, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: (If only peacocks crowed at sunup, I would keep them and eat my chickens, instead of the other way around.) This is borderline refbomb, most of the cites don't actually have anything to do with the subject, they're just plugs for things the subject has himself referenced. They do nothing to support the article, with the exception of #2, which is another non-notable author mentioning him by name. Finally, EggplantDancer's fervor and single-mindedness in promoting Fleming speak for themselves as clear COI. Why he won't cite any of these vaguely-referenced independent sources in the article is anyone's guess. 157.235.66.80 (talk) 21:42, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Apologies for the "fervour." I'm an ex-PhD student of his, and I'd seen that people such as Mireille Astore and Diego Bubbio and a whole bunch of other people had pages and felt some kind of loyalty. That's the truth. But, of course, I'm happy to let this one drop. I'm a newcomer to writing for Wikipedia and so may have got things terribly wrong - it wouldn't be the first time I've got things terribly wrong! I'm worried that further defences will simply be seen as irrational outbursts. Apologies if I've wasted people's time. Obviously, I think he's worth including, but won't take up more airtime trying to establish that, and wasting others' time doing so. EggPlant — Preceding unsigned comment added by EggplantDancer (talk • contribs) 00:29, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

(By comparison, I was looking at the profiles of Diego Bubbio and Dimitris Vardoulakis - and I can name innumerable others from other institutions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EggplantDancer (talk • contribs) 01:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd be really interested in the difference between Fleming's profile and the others which are seemingly comparable, and - in some cases - less notable. Could someone clarify here to help a newcomer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EggplantDancer (talk • contribs) 01:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * On very brief examination it looks like Mireille Astore has a lot of coverage in reliable sources and Diego Bubbio may be candidate for a deletion discussion. You may want to read the notability criteria referred to in the nomination statement (WP:GNG and WP:PROF) to get a better idea of how notability is judged on Wikipedia. (Please remember to sign your posts with . This will insert your user name and a time stamp when you save the page.)   J bh  Talk  02:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestions. Re. Store's "reliable coverage" (which I must admit amuses me somewhat), Fleming has been repeatedly interviewed in the international media (Reuters, ABC, etc.) - so this would be helpful to list to preserve the case, or have we now decided that the case is hopeless? And what of Dimitris Vardoulakis? (I'll cease raising cases like these, because I have no wish to have others deleted, but Fleming's case is very far from atypical, and it's odd that this is being subject to scrutiny to a degree that others simply aren't - but I guess nobody expects Wikipedia to be "objective" in any strict sense. Apologies about the sign-offs. I think this is how one does it: EggplantDancer (talk) 02:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * In some cases interviews may help show notability, it really depends on the source and the context. In general, for notability, what we are looking for is coverage in independent third party, reliable sources. Follow the because they describe what the Wikipedia meaning of those terms is, which is not necessarily the common usage meaning. In the articles mentioned above I did not did into the sources so I can not speak to how well they hold up. Academics are among the hardest people to write Wikipedia biographies for because they do not often get a lot of press coverage. Generally the notability criteria are only fulfilled by late career academics. As I said earlier, Royal Society members and the like, holders of named chairs, Field's Medal winners and Nobel Lauriates or, as is often the case, those whose impact can be shown by having many highly cited works. What "many" and "highly cited" means depends on their field of study. Also, please note that while it can be difficult for new users to accept, articles are always judged on how they stack up against Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, not against other articles. This is so common that there is even a page which explains it - WP:OTHERSTUFF. I hope this helps some.  J bh  Talk  03:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks fantastically informative - I appreciate the time you've taken to spell this out, and apologies for the lag in my understanding. I'll have another go at sourcing sourcing information in the next few days and then simply leave it at that.I've been misled, partly because I've read dozens of pages where the thinkers listed were - in fact - lesser know and cited. Again, much thanks. EggplantDancer (talk) 03:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I looked over the sources you added. He does get a lot of interviews which can be a good indicator of notability. However it can also be an indicator of good PR, which is why interviews are generally considered WP:PRIMARY sources. Have you found even one article where an independent third party writes about him/his work? Right now I am moving towards neutral on the question of deletion. I will read the sources you added in more detail as I have time but an indepenant third party source or two would help me get from toss up/weak delete to keep. Biographies, in my opinion, need to be based on sources which discuss the person rather than simply quote them. Also, you will notice I have been adjusting the indent level of your replies. Talk page comments are indented/threaded to make the conversation easier to follow. This brief tutorial on editing talk pages explains how to do that. J bh  Talk  13:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I found an article that may discuss him Conspiracy Theory and its Discontents  Britain and the World, Aug 2014, vo. 7, No. 2 : pp. 169-173 but I do not have easy access to that journal. Do you?  J bh  Talk  13:09, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. GS h-index of 4 is far WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC).

Thanks again, everyone. I'm loathe to raise it again, but I've randomly just found 11 people with lower h-index scores of people on Wikipedia, simply because this was supposedly a "knock down" comment just made. And yes, there's an editorial in Britain and the World which deals with Fleming's conspiracy book which I've left out, along with a bunch of other stuff, because I feel like the verdict has already been reached and nothing now could be said to reverse it, given the "fervour" of the rebuttals: "If only peacocks crowed at sunup, I would keep them and eat my chickens" says the person who accuses me of fervour. But I've put in more references, and there's many more that I could, but given that there's no consistency in how any of the criteria have been applied about "notability" - given the many examples that are easy enough to find which are far less notable, it seems pointless. ("Ah yes, the reference here in Girard's own book Mimesis and Theory says that Fleming's work is 'easily the best" book on mimetic theory,' but this is simply...um...not notable enough, you see - we must go with our objective criteria; we are very objective here"). Is this sour grapes on my behalf? Almost certainly - again, I have an agenda, no doubt about it. The point has been made above that it's not about other entries, but the fact is, if these are included (and the one's I mentioned have not been marked for deletion), then any reference to "criteria" are utterly irrelevant. (If a teacher says "you failed the exam" and you then find people who score lower than yourself and who also pass that exam, and you bring this fact to the examiner's attention, is it adequate for the examiner to say "Ah! But it's not about THEM and THEIR scores, it's about YOU and the relevant criteria?" Hardly, it seems that the term "criteria" here is so ectoplasmic that it can include - or exclude - whomever, depending on the day or the preferences of the examiner. Again, I'm beholden to my own agenda here, and I'm not hiding it (I'm one of those fawning ex-students) - but who comes to anything without an agenda? Certainly not this. Epistemologically, this is an enormously interesting area in itself (my PhD is in epistemology), and something itself worth writing about. But I now know that it doesn't really matter about the evidence I bring to bear on this. It's a pity, but the profile should probably come down sooner rather than later - it coming down later only implies a form of rational adjudication at work that is there only in name. NB. I do really appreciate people's time in explaining things to me; I feel very strongly about this, about everyone's generosity with their time and their patience with me when I've obviously been irritating; I have no desire to go on bugging anyone. I suspect, though, that Wikipedia authoring is probably best left to others, people more sympathetic to its particular form of rigour. I may well be wrong about all of this - I continue to be wrong about many things! - but I can't (yet) see how. Perhaps I should just make contributions by adding or subtracting small bits of info to (or correcting grammar of) existing pages. I'm probably too unskilled at this point to do much more than this; I was thinking of adding a page on Paul Dumouchel, but now I'm going to back away. Last Q: Why can't we just bring the page down today? EggplantDancer (talk) 03:04, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Nominate them for deletion then. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:21, 5 November 2016 (UTC).


 * Delete as certainly nothing for WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF. SwisterTwister   talk  04:26, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Delete, because I think - at this stage - it's by far the funniest thing to do. EggplantDancer (talk) 05:05, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * delete nothing to meet WP:BIO or WP:PROF. In my experience very long winded defences for keep are often a sign of conflict of interest. LibStar (talk) 13:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. One well-cited paper in his scholar profile, and being in on the founding of a non-notable local and specialized academic society, are not enough for WP:PROF, and there seems nothing else. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:39, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. My apologies - it was my first entry on Wikipedia and I let loyalty to my supervisor lead me astray. Sorry for taking up people's time with the assessment. I'll get more familiar with the policies in future. EggplantDancer (talk)


 * 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.