Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Benatar


 * 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The result was speedy close as the nominator has withdrawn and there are no outstanding delete preferences (non-admin closure). Skomorokh 03:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

David Benatar

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable academic. Only source provided is a scant listing on a faculty page of his school. No verifiable evidence provided that Benatar meets any of the standards of WP:PROF. (Contested speedy.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Update: Nomination withdrawn. It's pretty obvious now, given the references that have been added since this article was nominated for deletion, that Dr. Benatar mets notability standards for academics. There's no need for this to go on, so I've given User:Skomorokh an OK to close this. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - is a professor, a head of department at a University. Also done controversial work for which he has received press attention in WP:RS.  They have considered him worthy of note.  59 google news hits .  None notable academics tend to have very few and only in local press. 177 mentions on google scholar  non notable academics who WP:RS don't consider notable, tend to have very few.  Merkin's    mum  16:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:PROF. Not all professors - even department heads - are automatically notable. Frank  |  talk  16:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - refs have been provided; I'm convinced. (Article needs cleanup, of course, but they all have to start somewhere.) Frank  |  talk  20:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - is a professor, a head of department at a University. Also done controversial work for which he has received press attention in WP:RS. They have considered him worthy of note. 59 google news hits . None notable academics tend to have very few and only in local press. 177 mentions on google scholar non notable academics who WP:RS don't consider notable, tend to have very few.  Merkin's   mum  16:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 *  Delete  Fails WP:PROF. Please note that user User:Merkinsmum has voted twice Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I struck out the second !vote. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * please note that I didn't mean to vote twice- if you look it is the same comment, it just came out twice due to some sort of 'glitch in the matrix' :)  Merkin's   mum  20:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as per the above. ArcAngel (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep since apparently good refs have been provided to establish notability. ArcAngel (talk) 17:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   —David Eppstein (talk) 18:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I added some references. --Eastmain (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I duuno, are those references "big" enough to establish notability? A campus paper and what seem to be a couple of small South African papers?  To me that sounds like some local coverage, but that's just me. For me notability would be established with one major news source. ArcAngel (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So, he's a professor in South Africa, being written about in South African newspapers. What's the problem?  I wouldn't expect him to be written about necessarily in British or US papers, any more than I'd expect a British or American professor to be written about in South African papers.   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  21:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per referencing added by Eastmain. Seems to show notability within his (very specific) and wrongheaded field.  (reminds me of a Reagan quote, not to get too political... "All those in favor of abortion seem to have been born already..." or something like that...   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  20:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment "very specific" field? This chap has published in some of the most highly respected bioethics and medical ethics journals in the world, check Google Scholar. Skomorokh  21:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So we agree? Hard to tell. His field antinatalism, is very specific.  He's cited in Google Scholar as an expert, or at least as a leading proponent of antinatalism.  Not sure what you're going for here, Skomorokh.   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  21:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is the Google Scholar archive of Benetar's published, peer reviewed work. Take a scan of the paper headings (sample: "Cloning and ethics", "Why the Naïve Argument against Moral Vegetarianism Really is Naïve", "Contemporary Jewish Ethics and Morality: A Reader", "Brute Science: Dilemmas of Animal Experimentation" "Beyond the haze of the tobacco bill debate", "Corporal Punishment") If all you see is antinatalism, then you are very much mistaken. Disclosure: I am the creator of the antinatalism article. Skomorokh  21:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Blanket statements aren't helpful, but sepcific references and links are. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC) — Like the one you just added. Thanks. Only concern is that the search is for "D Benatar," but I'll assume good faith that this is in fact David Benatar. I'm going to let this discussion go on a while, but notability is not as suspect as it was at first. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to note in case you haven't been watching the changes to the article today, Benatar has published in some of the most widely respected philosophy and medical journals in the world - Ethics, Journal of Applied Philosophy, Social Theory and Practice, American Philosophical Quarterly, QJM: An International Journal of Medicine, Journal of Law and Religion and the British Medical Journal. All of this verifiable through the Google Scholar link above. Per WP:PROF, our professor needs to be "more notable than the average college instructor/professor". An adjunct professor or even an associate would kill to be published in Ethics or the BMJ. Regards, Skomorokh  22:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ...for which we would probably have to evaluate against WP:BIO1E in order to determine whether or not to create an article, eh? ;-) Frank  |  talk  23:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the article is now much different than it was when I nominated it. I'm pretty sure now of where this AfD outcome is headed, and that's fine with me now that we've established he's much more than just a university department head with a handful of published works. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Head of department in the highest-ranking university in Africa. His works have top citations of 48 & 38, with other works receiving only a handful per Google Scholar (searches for "D Benatar" also pull up "Daniel Benatar", with papers in the cardiac field); these don't seem to be outstanding, but I admit I don't have much of a handle on what average citations would be in this field. He has published in top-quality specialist journals and also has one book with Oxford University Press.  Several of the added references are merely to a campus/local newspaper, but others appear to be to the national press. On balance, I believe he meets both WP:PROF and WP:BIO. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep As it stands, it merits inclusion here. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Espresso Addict and Merkin's mum. The article could use some work, but the subject's notability seems to be established. Jakew (talk) 13:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep new references Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Jakew. Stifle (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2008 (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.