Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Weismann


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Max Weismann

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG, WP:PROF, or WP:AUTHOR. None of the organizations he was affiliated with seem to be accredited in any way. Psychastes (talk) 21:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. I found only a paid obituary. Reviews for How To Think About the Great Ideas exist but are credited to Mortimer J. Adler rather than Weismann. Jfire (talk) 02:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Philosophy, Architecture,  and Illinois.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  03:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak/Lean Delete (Awaiting more information) -- looking at Google Scholar I immediately came to the conclusion that there was enough to mount a keep argument. But looking more closely, it's tough.  He has a complete tribute obituary in Studia Gilsoniana, a philosophy journal held in 188 libraries, which is generally enough for a WP:PROF:C1 evidence for impact in the world of scholarship.  But as an e-journal, it is hard to tell if this is because of overzealous librarians who like to catalog (or subscribe to catalogs of) e-journals.  "Music Theory Online," which is one of the top 3 journals of my field, but is free and (as the name says) online only, is in 1180 libraries -- none of the libraries actually "own" either of the journals.  It's enough to contribute to notability, but not sure it's sufficient on its own.  Then there are tons of tributes in less reputable sources all found on thegreatideas.org.  Clearly Adler and A Syntopicon are notable, given the large amount of coverage, but I don't see Weismann's impact in any of the coverage.  It could go either way, but my spidey-sense from participating in a lot of these is that it doesn't add up to enough for WP:PROF or GNG notability, and the fact that none of the articles that seem like a place to direct to mention Weismann helps my conclusion. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 10:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete At this stage, doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. If there are more sources, will be a different story MaskedSinger (talk) 05:41, 2 May 2024 (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.