Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael E. Zimmerman


 * 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. Killiondude (talk) 04:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Michael E. Zimmerman

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Seems to fail WP:PROF. jps (talk) 23:49, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sierrak28 (talk) 01:55, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Sierrak28 (talk) 01:55, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Sierrak28 (talk) 01:55, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Sierrak28 (talk) 01:55, 25 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete: As per above. 79616gr (talk) 04:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC)


 * comment I do not, as a rule, do WP:PROF discussions, because it seems to me that the standard is too low. But a quick look seems to show that this fellow is routinely cited whenever Heidegger's name comes up these days: GScholar shows 500-odd cites for Heidegger's Confrontation With Modernity alone, and while it appears that some of those are spurious, I do not get the sense that this fellow is obscure. Mangoe (talk) 11:04, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. With 8 publications with over 100 cites in GS seems to pass WP:Prof (whatever integral theorist is). Xxanthippe (talk) 21:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC).
 * Keep per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. The standard for WP:PROF is fundamentally objective, being essentially the standard used by first rate universities for full professor, the highest ordinary rank. This is similar to how other professions are handled--artists, for example are judged by the standards set by major museums for their collections. He meets it unambiguously.
 * the actual problem here is that some fields of the humanities seem to have a self-contained almost cult-like status, and Integral Theory is one of them. It is very difficult to deal with  a article in these fields without using related sources which are suspect of having undue emphasis. The only way we can deal with it is to accept that the works of people in any closed group will be of concern mainly to those of that group, which may be very large, as for some religions, and where there is consequently no difficulty in showing notability , or very small, where they can be much more difficulty.
 * Fortunately, Zimmermann works in an area which is also studies outside of his own theoretical orientation, the mainstream philosopher Heidigger, and has academic appointment in institutions of general excellence. This removes the usual difficulties. We need not therefore take into consideration the possible fringe nature of integral theory--to the extent that I understand its direction, it is one where I have no personal interest or sympathy whatsoever, but that doesn't affect the decision here.  DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 28 March 2018 (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.