Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Gordon (philosopher)


 * 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. T. Canens (talk) 06:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

David Gordon (philosopher)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Apparently a paid academic/writer for private think-tank. Article has no third party sources. Fails WP:ACADEMIC and WP:GNG. LK (talk) 04:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —Nsk92 (talk) 12:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. Note that there is also an Aaron David Gordon who seems to be a Zionist philosopher, and entirely different.  I am uncertain at this point whether the economist "David B. Gordon" is the same guy or someone else as well. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A. D. Gordon, if alive, would be 145 years old. So probably not the same guy. LK (talk) 04:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "David B. Gordon" is an associate professor at Clemson University, who earned his Ph.D at University of Chicago in Monetary Theory. This David Gordon was "educated at UCLA, where he earned his PhD in intellectual history". So again, not the same guy. LK (talk) 02:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Not quite sure why it's significant that he is a "paid" academic. Surely that's rather common?  Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There's a significant difference between someone who is an academic in a public university or other academic institution, and a writer for a partisan think-tank where one's job depends on writing articles for in-house publications that spout a particular viewpoint. LK (talk) 04:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but does this difference affect their notability? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not, but this is an obvious fail on WP:ACADEMIC and WP:GNG. LK (talk) 07:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong keep: This AfD mostly highlights the problem with the descriptor "philosopher." I worked on the article recently and couldn't think of a better one. Author? Libertarian? Independent scholar? [Struck because since found two WP:RS describing him as a philosopher.] [Note there are three David Nolans and one is properly described as (libertarian).] Anyway, when you search "David Gordon libertarian" you get far more useful results: lots of mentions in various Books.google; a number at google.scholar;  a few in news.google archives; and a bunch of stuff in a regular google search, some of which would be WP:RS. Certainly this is a stub article about a notable libertarian worthy of continued work and I'll work on it some more. CarolMooreDC (talk) 07:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Looking at the search results for Google Book, Google Scholar and Google News, for "David Gordon" libertarian, I see nothing that comes close to a pass on any of the criteria for WP:ACADEMIC. LK (talk) 10:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  — -- Cirt (talk) 17:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The article does not claim he is an academic, so that's a bit of a straw man point. An author does not have to be an academic to have an article. The refs I point to are to general notability. Now I couldn't find a ref that he is a "philosopher" so I would in fact delete that, unless one is found. I'm sure some of those many WP:RS identify him as a "libertarian," so that's probably the best identifier. If I remember correctly you personally disagree with libertarian economics and perhaps that's why you are so opposed to the article and I just noticed you are in dispute with someone who wants to use Gordon as a reference (at this diff). But those are not reasons to delete the article. Just going by wikipedia standards, I think the article is a good stub and I'll work on identification, notability, etc. a bit more this weekend to make it clear to the deciding admin. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Update: have a bunch of commentary on his books and info about a couple more notable debates he's been involved in and publications and reviews in more mainstream publications still working on. Just a matter of sorting through it all and deciding which goes where... CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Carol, Kindly Assume Good Faith. I noticed David Gordon because his (IMO) not-notable argument were used to rebutt a Nobel Laureate. I then initiated this AfD as it appeared to me that Gordon fails both GNG and PROF. I am not doing so to further any dispute, and in the future, I would like you to kindly refrain from making such aspersions without proof. LK (talk)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep His principal book has a number of significant  mainstream reviews: he American Political Science Review, Jun., 1992, vol. 86, no. 2, p. 510-511, The Review of Metaphysics, Jun., 1991, vol. 44, no. 4, p. 842-843,  Contemporary Sociology: A Journal of Reviews, Nov., 1992, vol. 21, no. 6, p. 872-873. It and some of his other books are in about 200 university libraries. I cannot say I think this a distinguished career, but it does pass the bar for notability as an author.    DGG ( talk ) 21:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The citations in the article are in much better shape now. However, I still don't see how Gordon can pass any of the criteria listed in WP:AUTHOR, WP:PROF, WP:ANYBIO, WP:BASIC or WP:GNG. A biography article should pass at least one of the criterion listed in one of the notability guidelines to be considered notable enough for inclusion. LK (talk) 02:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Author reads among other things: "widely cited by peers or successors." I'd say I found at least 20 instances of academics citing him or thanking him for his help in various books and academic papers. Do you need all those also to be added? Given all the bios that have hardly any WP:RS at all, why pick on this one? CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think 20 qualifies as widely cited. I've been cited, commented on, or thanked in print more than 20 times. Does that also make me notable enough for a Wikipedia page? To give an example of what widely cited may mean, one widely cited paper by Robert Lucas, "On the mechanics of economic development", has been cited by over 13,000 people. LK (talk) 06:27, 16 June 2011 (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.