Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Luntley


 * 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. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America1000 03:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Michael Luntley

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is borderline, but I can't see where he passes WP:ACADEMIC. He has a couple of books which have been cited about 100 times over the last decade or two, but I don't think that passes the threshold of notability.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  ~SS49~   {talk}  14:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  ~SS49~   {talk}  14:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  ~SS49~   {talk}  14:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  ~SS49~   {talk}  14:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment Looking over the stubs on the books he has written, there might well be enough reviews to qualify him for WP:AUTHOR. My guess is that philosophy is one of those fields where citation counts aren't really helpful for evaluating WP:PROF, one way or the other. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Citations decent for applied philosophy. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC).

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~   {talk}  00:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep He meets WP:NAUTHOR, apart from anything else. Four of his books have Wikipedia articles, and each article includes references to at least two reviews. In addition, although the book Reason, Truth and Self does not have a WP article, I have found reviews of it in International Studies in the Philosophy of Science (July 1996, Vol. 10 Issue: Number 2 p173-179), and International Journal of Philosophical Studies (October 1997, Vol. 5 Issue: Number 3 p449-491). RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - You do realize that all 4 of those WP articles on his books have been recently created, all by the same editor? All four of which are virtually copy and paste of each other, ending with "...along with being widely cited in its field."  Looking on Google Scholar, he doesn't have a profile.  Wittgenstein: Opening Investigations was cited by a whopping 9; Wittgenstein: Meaning and Judgement did get quoted by an anemic 88; Contemporary Philosophy of Thought did get a whopping (yet still anemic 101, and The Meaning of Socialism I can't even find a real citation count on that. And having several books with minimal reviews zero of the 4 criteria of WP:NAUTHOR.  Onel 5969  TT me 04:20, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Reply WP:NAUTHOR does not require that an author's books are independently notable. #3 states "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of .... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." There are multiple independent reviews of his works, published in journals in his field, so within his field his works will be well-known. Whether or not the WP articles about the books are kept, the reviews can be added as references to this article.
 * With regards to WP:ACADEMIC, Notability_(academics) states "For scholars in humanities the existing citation indices and GoogleScholar often provide inadequate and incomplete information. In these cases one can also look at how widely the person's books are held in various academic libraries (this information is available in Worldcat) when evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied." Reason, truth, and self is held by 1276 libraries; Wittgenstein : opening investigations by 489 libraries; Wittgenstein Meaning and Judgement by 479; Language, logic & experience by 314; and The meaning of socialism by 231. I would say he definitely meets WP:ACADEMIC, as well as WP:NAUTHOR. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:58, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep agree with, as he meet WP:NAUTHOR. Hninthuzar (talk) 12:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per meeting WP:NAUTHOR criteria #3. There have been "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" of his "well-known work or collective body of work". You can view the individual Wikipedia articles for each of his books to see that each one has been reviewed by multiple academic journals. MarkZusab (talk) 15:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NAUTHOR as argued above. It might be best to merge the articles on the books into the article on Luntley himself, but that's a question for another day. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2019 (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.