Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Lewis (philosopher) (2nd nomination)


 * 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. —Doug Bell talk 19:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Peter Lewis (philosopher)


This article does not demonstrate that the subject yet meets our generally accepted criteria for inclusion of biographies. He is a published professor but all professors publish. There is no evidence that he passes the "average professor test". Note: This article was previously discussed at Articles for deletion/Peter Lewis (philosopher). That decision was closed in Aug 2005 as "no consensus". The article remains essentially unimproved since that time. Rossami (talk) 05:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I added that he is Assistant Professor. This is a weaker criterion for inclusion than full professor at a major university. He publishes actively (as the quest for tenure encourages). I do not see awards and honors listed, but it is interesting to see someone outside the physical sciences and mathematics analyzing the philosophical implications of the paradoxes in modern physics. Edison 20:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as insufficiently notable. There are no published works about the subject that are from sources independent of the subject itself. -- Satori Son 05:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep He's a prof, and he publishes real research. This is a lot better than the crackpots that usually come up on AfD. HEL 16:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Yes, but without third-party sources, we cannot properly verify the importance of his work. In fact, much of this article looks like original research. For example, there is no source for the statement, "Lastly, Peter Lewis has shown formal inconsistencies in the conspiracy interpretation of quantum mechanics. While such interpretations are universally rejected, such a formal debilitating blow had yet to be stuck against them." We have some fairly serious WP:V issues here because of the lack of notability.  -- Satori Son 16:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Conditional delete: for living persons of uncertain notability, I lean towards deletion in respect of the subject's personal privacy. Then again, I seem to recall an extremely controversial Peter Lewis in academia; if he is one and the same, he is very notable, but as I see no mention of any controversy in this article, he is unlikely to be the person whom I'm thinking of. 69.140.173.15 17:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, sometimes it is not the person but the theories that are notable. That requires the person to be mentioned.Rough 21:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: But as I said above, we don't have any reliable sources that confirm even the theories are notable, much less the article subject. -- Satori Son 22:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Extremely strong keep His interpretation of quantum mechanics is a notable one, & not in the current mainstream, but taken seriously. At least 7 out of his 11 primary works are in the leading journals in the subject. The only thing lacking is that the editors of the article in question didnt put it strongly enough & give enough sources. There have been many comments in academic and other journals. They should be sent a message to that effect. The last thing I'd worry about is personal privacy.  DGG 04:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Question: Will those arguing to keep this page commit to improving it or will this sit for another year unimproved?  If someone will start working on it, I'll withdraw the nomination.  (One editor has made some minor changes but the fundamental questions of sourcing and demonstration of notability within the article remain untouched.)  Rossami (talk) 04:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Who says the 'average professor test' has any standing - I'd like to know? If this has been to AfD once, why bring the same article back? Charles Matthews 08:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: This first AfD ended with "No Consensus", which resulted in keeping the article only by default. Looks like déjà vu all over again. -- Satori Son 14:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep legitimate philosopher, but the article needs work, especially the waffle in the "Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics" section. Stumps 09:07, 28 November 2006 (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.