Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred Miller (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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 22:55, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Fred Miller (philosopher)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

No independent sources, no substantial improvement since it was created 12 years ago, and tagged for notability since 2018. BD2412 T 18:08, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  BD2412  T 18:08, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I'm seeing a marginal case for WP:NAUTHOR.  The subject has one authored volume that looks fairly influential: reviews include, and it has a very large number of citations for a philosophy book.  An alternative to deletion would be a redirect to a stub on the book.  I am brought to weak keep over redirect, because in addition to the notable authored volume, the subject has a large number of edited collections of papers on various philosophical topics (most/all coedited with Ellen Frankel Paul and Jeffery Paul).  I'm seeing also lots of reviews of these edited volumes on a jstor search, and I think this might be enough for NAUTHOR. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you explain why this is "weak keep" and why it's a "marginal" case? Dr. Universe (talk) 18:10, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Since the one book is such a big part of what the subject is known for, it verges a little bit on WP:BLP1E. Indeed, without such a solid record of edited volumes I would have !voted to redirect to an article on the book.  But I also tend to use the "weak" prefix somewhat more often than other editors. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:51, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Currently, I'm leaning delete. WP:HEY might change my mind. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 02:06, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:Prof in this very low cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:57, 23 May 2022 (UTC).


 * Keep For Now Well I think this article can be improved Emery Cool21 (talk) 11:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Not Notable Emery Cool21 (talk) 12:14, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep professor at Bowling Green State University passes WP:NPROF. Worldsolarpower (talk) 15:09, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. There is no criterion of NPROF that merely being a professor would pass. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * per David Eppstein, i am changing my comment to passes WP:NAUTHOR. Worldsolarpower (talk) 12:58, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:AUTHOR. His monograph on Aristotle has many reviews, and he is co-editor of many edited volumes each with one or more published reviews. I added the reviews I found to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:23, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. The citations are very high for the field; Nature, justice, and rights in Aristotle's Politics appears to be a highly cited, widely reviewed classic and other highly cited works on Aristotle show the subject to be considered an expert on the topic. There are also reviews of the edited volumes, which I believe also count towards WP:AUTHOR (though perhaps discounted compared with authored works). Espresso Addict (talk) 05:00, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Leaning towards keep: on a brief search, there appears to be at least some significant coverage in reliable sources . Alduin2000 (talk) 14:06, 28 May 2022 (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.